DontRunMeOver

I agree that conflict is natural as a result of some kind of competition for essential things. Hobbes, however (in LedZep statement at least), stated that 'war and conflict' were a natural state. Conflict to some degree, as in tussling and arguing to establish the leaders in a group etc. and who's opinion holds sway, is natural. I don't think that war, as prolonged and unconstructive violence between humans, is natural.

However, I wouldn't say densely packed human populations are our natural state either, so our behaviour in the face of such overpopulation is going to change.

__________________

cardboard adolescent

I don't think either is entirely right. I think humans are born with a biological survival instinct, which, in a society like ours, in which one must compete for his basic needs, manifests itself as a constant struggle, a competition to a) survive and b) secure as many of life's luxuries for oneself. In a society in which basic needs as well as luxuries were guaranteed for everyone, I think the survival instinct wouldn't dominate our course of action, and everyone could hypothetically co-exist peacefully.

So, I don't support Hobbes' view that man is fundamentally self-serving and apathetic to the plight of others, rather I think Rousseau is closer when he says that society has made man to be this way. And really, all you need to do is find a society in which man has no need to compete and observe their peaceful cohabitation. And I'm sure societies like that exist around the world (mostly aboriginal, I'm sure). But, at the same time, in even the most peaceful tribe, it seems that conflict is inevitable. I don't attribute this to some flaw in human nature, but random chance. Maybe by some genetic defect a person is born predispositioned towards violence, maybe some event in their early childhood led them to become embittered towards existence or their peers. I don't really know how it happens, but it seems it always does. Even in a perfect society you would have bad seeds, and it's all a matter of how you make a social construct that allows people the greatest freedom and yet protects the stability of the society from the actions of... delinquents?

So when it comes to actually making a government, a state, whatever, I think Hobbes is full of crap. Though he basically says the same thing I just said, that we need to give up some of our freedom to ensure civil defense, his endorsement of a strong, overbearing authority seems to contradict his own understanding of human nature. A construct in which those who have all the freedom and all the luxuries are given all the power over everyone else, there is no incentive to share their freedom or wealth, and such a system can only lead to corruption and further stripping of power from the masses.

Democracy seems to be the best way to go when it comes to representing the views of the people fairly, yet even democracy has its flaws. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." Personally I think the system of government in place in America is relatively fair, as far as governments go, though I would support the removal of the electoral college and the institution of a policy of proportional representation for elections.

Economically speaking, capitalism seems to support all of the evils that have been discussed, the struggle for wealth and unending conflict between people and states. Socialism, however, isn't necessarily much better, though the people's basic needs are guaranteed, all of the luxuries are still concentrated in the hands of the few. Additionally, you've now taken away some of the freedom of the people and added to the authority of the state, giving them additional governing rights over industry and agriculture. And then finally, with the extreme alternative, communism, noone really has the luxuries, and in practice, the kind of suppression and exertion of control required to put a system like communism in place is extremely unstable and inneffective. For communism to ever work, people would have to come to it naturally, given a great deal of time, and either such a plethora of luxuries where competition would be unnecessary, or where the luxuries are so concentrated that almost all of the people are without them anyway so communism does not represent that great of a change.

I'm not even really sure what I started out talking about anymore, I guess it was the nature of man, I don't know if I even really answered the question. But if even one person reads that I guess I'll get a sense of accomplishment.

cardboard adolescent

To use your bus analogy, imagine the same situation, except there is a bus for every person. Would you see anyone scrambling or fighting against one another to get a seat on the bus? Of course you wouldn't because there would be no need for competition. According to Hobbes, man is naturally "evil" and "greedy," but the only reason man is greedy is because he exists in a situation where he is taught by experience to be.

MoonlitSunshine

^ But Humans as a species, everything as a species, has a need to evolve, to rise higher than where they started. Everyone has a certain amount of ambition and competitiveness, it's something we've always had. It's needed to survive. If you aren't competitive, you fall behind those with more ambition, and it's fairly logical that if two different species were in competition this theory would stand, the more ambitious group would win.

Seeing as there is always ambition, Conflict and war are not the result of societies delinquents, rather a lack of any competition for those with the greatest ambition. There will always be someone who wants to rule the world, in fact I'd say very many people want to rule the world, it's just that only a tiny proportion of those have the ambition to attempt it.

I don't think Humanity would be capable of living in perfect harmony, unless we were given a common purpose, something to overcome. And while there are many things out there like that, in the form of diseases, global warming, The Superpowers of the world aren't pressed enough to act. AIDS doesn't bother america, because there isn't a huge percentage of cases, like in Africa. Global warming is being pushed aside because to do anything about it would hurt the economy, and We can't be having that.

What we need (but not really) is some sort of global threat, something that would effect every country in the world, unless it was stopped, and could only be stopped if everyone worked together. I can't see humans working in harmony without something like that, something so serious as to need cooperation to survive, because without it we are destined to squabble with eachother for power.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

Sneer

OK, i see your point, i was attempting to be purposefully vague because i didnt want to go into too much detail with it all. Basically, from my own interpretation and as people have already stated, human beings are born with this innate, natural instinct to survive. They constantly desire and therefore can never be fully satisfied due to to this continuing desire for food, warmth, land etc. If other humans were to impose on these desires, naturally a conflict would occur. the "war" idea was probably due mostly to the fact Hobbes wrote this amidst the height of the English civil war - which was composed of two sets of men with completely conflicting desires - which due to passion escalated into warfare. This revolt against the monarchy showed to Hobbes that without the soviergnty and a divine figure to pass rulership, people would resort to a state of anarchy and violence. As most can see, this theory has many many flaws but i think Hobbes portrayal of the natural human state is quite correct. He believed we were naturally volatile, violent creatures and think about it, when your getting on the bus or train for work/school in the morning and theres a mass of people all scrambling and pushing for a spot on the transportation, dont you feel incredibly aggravated? its our natural state which is quelled by the (to an extent) democratic society we live in. So i think though Hobbes theory of man was closer to the truth, Rousseau's solution was alot more effective. Which is quite odd considering he meant it for naturally compassionate, loving people. In saying that, i dont think human beings are solely violent, aggressive people, their main aim is to survive, to support families and loved ones. So love is a main factor.

__________________
Fright Team radio show