Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Thomas Hobbes described the state of nature as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Leviathan, Chapters XIII–XIV). [138] Locke takes a more benign view of the state of nature and is unwilling to take as hard a stance on the degeneracy of the state of nature. He does agree that it is equally incapable of providing a high quality of life.
Locke describes the state of nature and civil society to be opposites of each other, and the need for civil society comes in part from the perpetual existence of the state of nature. [7] This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology).
State formation is the process of the development of a ... which established the concept of state ... people are spared the chaos of Hobbes' "state of nature", ...
Hobbes’s concept of moral obligation thus intertwines with the concept of political obligation. This underpins much of Hobbes’s political philosophy, stating that humans have a political obligation or ‘duty’ to prevent the creation of a state of nature. [9]
The most perfect example of the modern State is North America. The modern French, English and American writers all express the opinion that the State exists only for the sake of private property, so that this fact has penetrated into the consciousness of the normal man. [8] Economic Dependence of the State on the Bourgeoisie
This expands upon Hobbes' concept of the "state of nature," which is a hypothetical scenario about how people lived before societies were formed and the role of societies in placing restrictions upon natural rights or freedoms to create order and potential peace. Due to the lack of an international society the international system is therefore ...
The state system, which grew out of the social contract, was, however, also anarchic (without leadership). Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other.
The State and Revolution describes the inherent nature of the State as a tool for class oppression, the creation of a social class's desire to control the other social classes when politico-economic disputes cannot otherwise be peacefully resolved; whether a dictatorship or a democracy, the State remains the social-control means of the ruling ...