ChapterZero

In my Honors Political Science I class, we’ve been thankfully freed from the ties of propaganda that bind all other introductory Pol Sci classes: we don’t have to read a thick, dry text on the internal machinations of the US’s government that explains just why the way the government here is set up is the only way. And our tests aren’t exercises in rote memory– in fact, we don’t have tests. Instead, we read a few classics on political theory then write papers comparing the different authors’ thoughts; so far, we’ve read Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government.

The one thing that I can really remember from either of these books is that both of them develop systems of government that seem, to me, rather ridiculous. The sad thing is, they are based on concepts that seem acceptable, yet the implications of these concepts are far from acceptable, or sometimes even reasonable. For instance, Locke starts out by asserting every individual’s right to protect his life, liberty, and property. He next observes that in the state of nature, no one can be truly in a state of peace, because they live in danger of others arbitrarily seizing their property; this necessitates the formation of government. Naturally, under government, the majority must make the decisions, because if unanimous agreement was required, the process would be too halting. After a couple more (seemingly) logically sound arguments, he reaches a conclusion that basically permits tyranny of the majority. I could point out countless other examples of similarly unsatisfactory properties of Lockian governments, but what would be the point– one bad one is enough. Hobbes similarly concludes that no one has any rights under the ideal government, and the sovereign possesses the unquestionable power of life and death over his citizens.

What makes reading these books so interesting, and yet such a bitter experience, is the fact that every modern government I would care to live under seems to be based on derivatives of the same premises Hobbes and Locke used– natural rights in particular. So it seems they are all equally liable to have unresolvable paradoxes.

And perhaps, all governments do– the thought comes to mind that perhaps theories of government are doomed to inevitable failure by two contradictory needs: the need to protect the individual’s rights, and the need to assure the well-being of the society.

Possibly relevant posts:

• is a family blog possible? (12/8/2001)
• Uniform Planar EM Waves (9/7/2003)
• Physical Semantics (7/2/2002)