Philosophy!!?

[yankeegirl161]

Anarchists argue that government is never justified in its exercise of authority. Locke argues that government is legitimate so long as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights. Hobbes argues that government has a much broader authority to secure peace, and keep people's natural selfish instincts in check.

Which of the perspectives above do you agree with the most? Do you think your answer depends on what you think human nature is like (i..e. whether people are basically selfish or essentially good?

[Russ DG]

Good question.

In political philosophy, I like both Locke and Hobbes. Both have great points. Being a liberal I lean slightly towards Locke. But it is really hard to dispute many valid points from Hobbes that boil down to selfishness as human nature.

I say the good balance is somewhere in the middle. It depends on the culture of the society being governed. Vast differences of roots, cultures, and economics and their constant state of flux are the reasons why philosophies of governments change. Perhaps, also why countries group and ungroup throughout history.

Kind of like surfing. The wave you surf on is never the same.