Over the next several months, I’d like to delve into a variety of topics that expound on the notion of why government is necessary. In other words, I am going to build and defend the following thesis: government is a necessary societal entity for the preservation of mankind, to provide mutual protection amongst citizens, to dispense justice, and to guard against anarchy.
Increasingly in our day and age, governments have come under heightened ridicule and derision (and rightfully so), as they have lost the primary objective as to why they are meant to exist in the first place. There are a wide variety of reasons for this failure – and the government itself, while partially responsible, is not entirely to blame for this phenomenon. I argue that it is the responsibility of the people to ensure that a just and fair government operates within its jurisdictional boundaries. A failure on a societal level to hold the government to account will enable a government to increasingly abuse its authority with impunity. Hence, it is a failure of both the government and that of the people, that ultimately brings down society.
It is important to note our topic of discussion will not initially be concerned with the specifics of government itself – the primary concern is why having a government in an abstract sense is necessary. If you must (for simplicities sake – as abstractions can be hard to wrap your head around), think of a governmental structure that you would find most optimal (i.e., constitutional republic, monarchy, etc.). The question we are attempting to answer is the following: is the government you just thought up necessary? If so, why? What would happen if we removed it? What then?
Before moving forward, I think it’s necessary to point out a bigger philosophical issue that is assumed here. I am working under the presumption that government is necessary to preserve justice and harmony, and the absence of government will lead to anarchy. Is this assertion valid? Before taking a look, let’s stop first and define an important term here. What is anarchy? I am not fond of Black’s definition (usually the de-facto political science dictionary for these things), so will amend his definition. Anarchy is the absence of any and all governmental structures and institutions. This does not (in theory) logically conclude that anarchy begets lawlessness1. Essentially, it is one based on voluntary cooperation between individual citizens. So, to recap: anarchy is the complete absence of government. Anarchy does not in and of itself demand lawlessness, but it does demand voluntary cooperation between citizens in order that lawlessness be avoided.
We must then ask this important question – is anarchy without lawlessness possible? The answer to this question rests on how you view the nature of man – or as Thomas Hobbes puts it, the primeval “state of nature”. If you believe that man is an inherently sinful creature (i.e., that he was born with wickedness as his default tendency), then the answer to this is no. Such a scenario (anarchy without lawlessness) is a good theory but holds no practicability, as in a power vacuum, men will quickly default to their brutish, self-conceived, selfish tendencies, and hence barbarianism will quickly result.
If you answer this question with a yes – that man is inherently good, and perhaps he is corrupted by societal influences, or his surroundings, etc., etc. (influences we won’t discuss here), then your answer will be yes – it is possible to have anarchy without lawlessness. In other words, without the corrupting nature of society, or government, it is possible for men to live harmoniously together without a power structure.
Some of you may be thinking… why only two options? Is there a third answer here? Let’s sit on this assumption momentarily… even though it will be quickly demonstrated this is an incoherent position. Theoretically, it obviously is possible – as far as we can mentally imagine it to be. However, it is logically incoherent and makes no common sense when applied, and thus must be discarded. That is to say, some men could be born with malicious souls, and others with pure ones. However, if we introduce this into our empty society (or as anthropologists might call it, a paleolithic society), our presupposition becomes logically tenuous and we must answer that question posed above with a resounding no. Because if there is a bad actor in amongst good actors, then that bad actor will be (at some point in time) capable (and even willing) to stir up dissension and thus cause lawlessness to occur2.
Thus, in order to proceed within the bounds of logic and reason (which is what all good philosophers and citizens should strive to do), we will move forward into the discussions of the merits of one or the other – either the absence of government will cause society to descend into chaos and anarchy, or on the basis of the truth of the anti-thesis of the former statement.
Footnotes:
- The corresponding syllogism is: The absence of government equals anarchy. Anarchy equals lawlessness. ∴ The absence of government equals lawlessness.
- This, interestingly, is a Biblical concept – see 1st Corinthians 15:33. Many eminent philosophers and commentators generally agree that the introduction of an evil presence will necessitate the corruption of the entity in which it is introduced. This is observable in nature (i.e., introducing a mold spore into a loaf of fresh bread) as well as well-documented in humans.
Notes:
The main ethos of this introduction is essentially a discussion on a theory called “the state of nature”, introduced by Hobbes, expounded on by John Locke, and commented on by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In a nutshell, the state of nature is a state devoid of government or any power structures – i.e., an anthropological paleolithic area before humans had a chance to come up with a power structure for themselves.
I would recommend reading The Lord of the Flies. That being said, do not watch the movie if you care anything about the underlying philosophy. It deviates too much from the book and is logically innocuous and does not capture the thesis of the book.
The “state of nature” has nothing to do with Natural Law, as in the theory surrounding morality (there are two branches to this – and both are in the realm of legal theory), or even the laws of nature/natural rights – a topic that will be up for discussion another time.