State of Nature

Using an imaginary state of nature has proven to be a crucial factor in forming the ideas

of the natural rights philosophers. An imaginary state of nature is imagining what society would be like without government. Natural rights exist even when not given or enforced by the government. In an imaginary state of nature, it is possible to see what rights are necessary to all people, and a government can be built around those rights. A state of nature looks at a civilization in its most basic form, with no rules. It can be used to see what laws are necessary, by observing human nature, and seeing what problems would occur with no laws. The role that a government should have in the life of its citizens can be determined from this. John Locke, perhaps the most influential of the natural rights philosophers, thought that human nature was generally good and reasonable. However, he recognized that people are also very self-interested, so those citizens who had an advantage would try and take away the rights of the weak. The weak could then band together against the stronger citizens, and there would be chaos without laws. This part of human nature makes it necessary to have a government. Locke felt that the best type of government was something along the lines of a constitutional monarchy. Other philosophers, however, disagreed. Thomas Hobbes, for example, thought that humans were generally evil in nature. Because of this, a very strong ruler is needed for a successful government. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that a state of nature became a nasty and immoral condition. He felt that people should unite through the social contract, and disregard the ideas of natural rights. He thought that society depended on the will of the people, and was an advocate of socialism. Locke determined that there were three primary laws of nature: the right to life, liberty, and property. These unalienable rights are said to define our purpose and life, and serve as the basis of humanity. All individuals have the right to defend these if they are threatened, regardless of whether or not there is a government to protect them. A government cannot exist until it is created. Furthermore, a government cannot be legitimate until the people which it rules have chosen to be ruled by it, and the government has their permission. A legitimate government gets all of its power from the people that it governs, according to Locke. This is a very important differentiation. According to the laws of nature, nobody has the right to govern anybody else, so agreeing to be governed becomes necessary. If a government does not have consent to rule, and does not protect the natural rights of its citizens, they have a right of rebellion. This means they can overthrow the government. This is an important distinction to make, because if it were truly followed, only governments that were just in the eyes of the people would exist. Obviously any form of forced dictatorship or military rule would not be legitimate, but something as simple as elected officials not doing as they promised could be seen as illegitimate. Fidel Castro's rule in Cuba would be illegitimate, and some would argue that George W. Bush's presidency is illegitimate. In conclusion, an imaginary state of nature is very essential to examine the nature of government, and some of the problems involved with it. Without a government, the needs that everyone shares, and that everyone should have a right to become very evident. The people of a society must give a government consent to rule them, or it holds no authority.