Tuesday, 10 February 2009


In terms of views on the state, I don't fit into Hobbes or Russo's way of thinking...

In short, Thomas Hobbes said that a state, and state leadership has to be useful as it helps to maintain order. In contract theory, if you obey the state, you will be protected by it in return. In the case of Britain, many would most probably dismiss this, especially the ones who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but through terrible mis-management of the economy. However, we would then have to question the 'protection' of developed countries from the likes of the United States, Australia and Japan.

Yes, I obey the state, I don't take the law into my own hands (very often!) but I understand how it often can be easy to get frustrated when the media exposes the government for making mistakes that really shouldn't be made by the ruling class. Sometimes it seems the tax-payer is the only party keeping their end of the deal.

What about Rousseau (pictured, right)? The Frenchman believed the concept of the state was flawed: "man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they." Although at the other end of the spectrum to Hobbes, this all seems to extreme. The prospect of the human race being left to their own devices is really not advisable in my eyes. One word. Anarchy.

Rousseau said that the state corrupts and hinders people's ability to flourish. I can accept this to a point, but what about the people whose only speciality would be to create hell for those around them with the absence of police or state control? What about education? What about money, and the use (and abuse) of it?

Maybe we should shelve Rousseau for now, but you never know, if our leaders can't deal with today's unhealthy climate, we might not have much to lose. Look at Germany in 1933!

1 comment:

  1. This is good, but needs to move it on a bit. What you you find most interesting about Rousseau.