Positive View Of Human Nature example essay topic

New York Times, on Sunday, November 8, had an article on sentences addressed by a Federal judge to three members of the antigovernment Montana Freemen for conspiracy and fraud; the article stirred my memory and concern about this paper, as well as brought into play many of the dilemmas discussed in the Nature of Politics class. However, I do not wish to analyze this particular article or cult, but the emergence of anarchy. There have been theories and diagnosis of human nature: the Aristotelian, te leo-logical view of the political animal, the Platonic, metaphorical view of the chained caveman, the Hobb ian, phobic view of savage life as inevitably 'short', and many notable others. Regardless of the differences found in these, there is a common denominator found in all. That is, human beings move from the animalist ic, passive stage to the civilized stage in order to materialize their potential in full.

In this domain, governments serve as expedients or facilitators of an anthropological movement. The mechanism may differ from one type of government to another, but its principal, common function is to lay and protect the foundations for a prosperous humanity. In aiming this, a totalitarian regime, an oligarchy, or even a democracy, resorts to some pattern of hierarchy. It is worth noticing, that no matter what degree of legitimacy one government enjoys, or another lacks, they both eventually assume an hierarchical order which in turn inevitably assures a pragmatic.

History repeatedly proves that beyond theory. Even in Communist Soviet Union where all classes were abolished, as they were accused of being the source of all social misery, even then and there, hierarchy rose with the communist-party-class at its top. In the interstate system as well, although member-states are said to be equally sovereign, they gradually form a multi polar or bipolar structure where-in the eventual hegemony lobby. The complication, therefore, stems from the fact that any hierarchy fosters legal, pragmatic, social inequality among otherwise -legally- equal entities.

Well, it is obviously not the case that people are gifted evenly at birth, or that they share perfect analogy and symmetry between them, despite Hobbes' high figure of even selfishness. Society, kindly wishes to align people at a starting point in order to grant them the most humble yet violated right which, as first stated by St. Anselm, is that "all men are equal". However, complete equality among people being impossible, the wish now becomes the amelioration or reduction of inequality. This justice is one of the exercises of a government of men over men. "A government of men over men" though, as pronounced by Madison, states a relationship and not an equality or an equivalence. Men o vs. e r men, no matter how well or badly, literally become: m e n o vs. e r men.

Therefore, a government, i. e., an arbitrary or legitimate hegemony of society, as the entity being at the top of the hierarchical chain is proportionally greater than any, or all of its subjects, and exercises the associated, unique power which far exceeds, and is not explicitly accommodated in, its constitutional powers. An institutional power, distant and unfamiliar to any other subject, that becomes even more distinct, because although one may alter, change, modify, question, or shape it, one cannot, however, annihilate it. It is worth illustrating this more: one cannot break it, interrupt it, pause it, revoke it, reverse it, or stop it. Such form of power is a pure form of c o n t r o l -a power that is here to stay. Therefore, the issue is not whether a society or a government does something wrong, but whether there is wrong it what it becomes: an abstract source of control and not a mere expedient or inexpedient mechanism, as challenged by Henry-David Thoreau. To any human inequalities and their natural consequences, further artificial inequalities are imposed through this faceless authority.

Therefore, if within the state -despite all its rules and constraints- justice is often not found, one may as well chose to live in a state of nature, where justice may not be steadily found either, but it is neither premised, nor sacrifices are required, or restraints imposed. Whereas society and state promise equality and justice, anarchy warrantees f r e e d o m. This value appeals to humans as being the highest and most true as far back as 400-300 BC., when the Cynics saw the 'civilized values' as being no true values. Living in a society without state-rule is living in an anarchic environment.

In this context, freedom is the absence of any external force. 'Here', any type of state is associated with oppression and exploitation -lack of freedom and justice. Anarchy literally means the lack of any ark he, i. e., the lack of authority, origin, principle (Greek: an eu-arch = ). Although, ideally, anarchy may seem attractive, it bears a decisive weakness: it is based on a positive view of human nature. That is, human beings are for the most part capable of rationally governing themselves in a cooperative, peaceful and productive manner and hence forming natural, noble societies. Unfortunately, although many have adopted this ideal, optimistic view, most have abandoned it, or opposed it as unrealistic.

Most state and government types are based on a negative view of human nature. Therefore, they try to control or channel behavior. In order to achieve this, states hold to themselves and themselves only, the legitimate use of violence -the monopoly of violence, and the codification of all social action and interaction. Anarchy rejects and reacts to this dominant and flat control.

An effective antidote to anarchy seems to be the formation of a friendly and optimistic public policy that would project a positive human view. In other words, one may reject anarchy in theory or practice, but still needs to address its causes, and in doing so could put some of its most appealing and justified aspects in practice. Relative freedom should be secured in the arts, business, commerce, education, family, industry, religion, speech, etc. Most certainly, any form of control should not be magnified or constantly declared and reminded, but justified, qualified, tested, and even understated in the most diplomatic way. Freedom too, should not be overstated as a secured good, but questioned as a real, pragmatic value. The boundaries between private and public life should be sensitive and responsive to ephemeral trends, as there is no fear of any very sudden, radical change in these, only a gradual, social evolution.

The latter should be guided in a very light manner. Therefore, schooling and higher education should definitely be accessible to all, at the lowest possible or no cost at all; education cannot be considered a luxury in any respectful human society. Further, authentic pedagogy should be seen as a means of culture and not only as mere specialization or training for possible, future employment or occupation. Universities should be centers of culture; education is an end in itself, and should be seen as a quality acquired only in aspired societies. Onl y when one is able to understand one is able to forgive, and this rule applies to citizenship as well. The cultured citizen has the skill and enjoys the ability to listen attentively, to reserve comments, to understand thoroughly, and to raise questions.

He, or she, is able to develop a social conscience. The state should try to decide a question by referendum. This procedure draws citizens closer to the authorities. Active participation develops public concern, acute criticism, and transparent intentions while it distributes responsibility. Referendum is a common practice in prosperous and stable states like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. Further, citizens may be compensated for time invested in public affairs.

This was a steady practice in the ancient city-states in order to encourage attendance, as we learn through Aristophanes and Xenophon. As a consequence, one would hardly envisage the government as abstract, alien, or faceless, when one is an active part of it. This close political interaction develops communication and assures direct representation. Information -accurate, clear, and updated, should be the most readily available and accessible service of the state. Citizens should be urged to become aware of their rights and of the responsibilities that these yield.

Bureaucracy can be and should be diminished in favor of mutual trust and reliance. In result, capital and time saved could be invested on urgent and valuable matters like health and research, while bond and interdependence tighten. Human beings need to belong to a whole. If this need is addressed by an ideology with a flexible perspective, control and taxation could feel lighter than what they usually feel. Security, and all the grand goods a state provides, do not amount to the appeal of togetherness -especially in a 'loose' time of peace. The project, however, requires bold and honest steps.

For example, a given sum transferred from rich to poor would enhance the welfare of the latter more than it would decrease the welfare of the former. This could be achieved through adequate allowance and mild taxation for the poor and lower middle classes, as well as incentives for the wealthy to care for and donate to their fellow humans. Giving is not a rare practice among the wealthy; many are philanthropists but this custom needs to be fostered and promoted. After all, all humans share the need to belong to a whole.

Clearly, the state should emphasize and secure the equal distribution of benefits and sanctions, and manifest the interdependence of all members. This in turn will strengthen and project its finest role: the state that serves the citizen, versus, the citizen who serves the state. Eventually, both Cynics and anarchists would be accommodated. Preferably, those who wouldn't should not be alienated or marginal, but kept out of it... Plato is aware, and so is his audience, of this omnipresent, blind control when he records the apology. Socrates recalls his tacit agreement with Athens and conducts in tune with it.

Nevertheless, although the articles of the social contract are met, justice is not served. Socrates is a conscious Athenian, not an antinomian. The tragic irony, however, is that the persona of Athens fails to see the truth but does not fail to sacrifice her most noble citizen. And this is not a mere procedural fault as it takes place in a democratic, intellectually vibrant agora (arena), and further persists throughout the course of human history. Only the philosopher king could be indifferent to control and power, and solely interested in justice and truth that transcend any actual, purposeful ends. Fanatics and geniuses, ignorant and nobles, stoics and veterans, may form a particular 'people' in a given time and place, but they hardly share any common, deep political identity or homogeneity other than in their very basic animal needs and preferences based on contemporary images and beliefs.

Nature and its consciousness, however, are deeply ingrained and independent. As Henry-David Thoreau said, "in wildness is the preservation of the world". One may consider, as Michel Foucault did, how power would produce subjects. However, one would soon come to notice how there would always be subjects marginal to this power, i. e., not simply alienated but outside of it. And although they may reach antinomy through different strands, they would be directed towards the same source. It seems far more possible that individuals in their selfishness would acquire a code for greater efficiency and familiarize themselves with accelerated power not found outside the social market.

And although interdependence within a system may hold back those powerful from getting ahead, in no way does it eliminate these natural dynamics. If humans' end is the political life -in the original, Aristotelian sense - this does not assume or presuppose total anthropocentrism or contingent politico centrism. In other words, if humans' end is living in 'polis' it is not clear how all humans can miraculously fit in the political stage they happen to emerge, or how all other life can be subordinate to the anthropocentric, dominant stage it happens to emerge. Anarchists, extremists, fanatics, genius, ignorant, nobles, or veterans, may form a particular group in a given time and place, but they hardly share any common sense or homogeneity other than in their very basic animal needs or preferences in contemporary issues. Their collective conduct need not be all good or all bad for it is fairly right to say that all good things don't go together, just as all bad things don't. However, although there may be nothing wrong in what they do, there may be wrong in what they become.

A non fully conscious political conduct, or an epidermic response of a whole does not share a concise and firm sense of direction which is required in any thoroughly conceived and well functioning system in order for it not only to depart from necessary conditions but also to orient towards and meet its proper end. The only safe outcome here is the supremacy and well being of the system at the expense of its 'raison d'etat'. Put another way, how can these distinct, individual creatures become shareholders in a ready -even though evolving -civil system and really assume the right position, contribute and behave their best and be fairly benefited? It seems as a skeleton of something far from 'healthy'.

Both the 'retarded' and the 'advanced' could function only once they are circumcised. One may argue that there are more average members in the system than there are deviants and that the re is no large variance but that still doesn't address the case where there is a large variance. After all, the political theory considered in forming state and government systems, law and enforcement, picks extreme values in the placeholders of variables. It is not hard then to see, when only the worse or the best aspects of nature weigh on the scale, how the highs and lows make a balance impossible to achieve or even worse how the participants are unaware of the real gains while preoccupied with their own harsh adaptation.