Lecture 3 – State of Nature Theorising

5th February 2019

1. What would life be like in the absence of the centralised coercive authorities we call
‘states’?

Different answers to this question are given by the theories we’re going to look at in the next
four lectures.

2. Why should we care?

Why is this a useful way of thinking about politics? What does this topic underly? We will be
looking into human nature.

States are social constructs. They do not exist naturally – we actively create them and maintain
them. That means we can ask what reasons we have to create and maintain them.

People didn’t used to question the system which they were inserted in, but now we’ve realized
we have built them and therefore can change them.

We need to strip away the normative background as human beings and ask the question: what
is all of this for? Is it valuable?

We are not asking what policies states should adopt in order to become more just.

Our question is more fundamental: What basic role do states play that makes them worth
having in the first place? – we are not assuming states will be around forever… what will life
look like then?

The jaded realist: ‘What’s the point of theorising about the fundamental role or purpose of the
state? States are not going away anytime soon so why bother?’

 If it turns out that states do serve a particular purpose, then understanding that
purpose might help us to refine existing state institutions. It might also help us look
into the future: build new, complementary institutions in future (e.g. institutions of
international law). State of nature theorising helps progress in the ideological debate
of “who is right” (libertarians, egalitarians, nationalists).
 If it turns out that states do not serve a useful purpose, then dismantling them should
be our long-term goal (anarchic view). This might be hard to do but we have to start
somewhere.

And even if our inquiry into the fundamental purpose of states is inconclusive we will learn a
lot along the way about various questions of crucial important to the normative analysis of
politics.
The unreflective conservative: ‘Asking what life would be like in the absence of the state is a
stupid question – it would obviously be much worse!’

This is a conservative view, we are at the best place in which we could be right now, given our
past.

Perhaps it would be much worse, but to end the discussion there would be unhelpful.

We want to know how much worse it would be and why:

- Because people are inherently violent? – is the state constantly keeping a check on
that violence?

- Because although people are not inherently violent they would likely end up acting
violently? – because there would be no higher authority, things would spiral out of
control;

- Because although people wouldn’t end up being violent they would necessarily be
economically much worse off? – because states and the regulative nature of their legal
systems provide welfare, trading standards, industrial standards, etc.

- Because although they wouldn’t necessarily be economically worse off they would be
worse off in other ways (e.g. unable to sustain their culture, language, etc.)? – every
growth would be harder to obtain.

What is the state? An artificially created system of hierarchally ordered rules (lecturer’s
personal definition, not the right one)

 First order rules directly regulate the behaviour of those participating in the system.
They tell participants what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to
do. Ex. Do not assault others.
 Second order rules create special positions of authority that empower certain
participants to determine the content of the first order rules and enforce them. Ex.:
Judges can determine how long someone should spend in prison.

This identification of the state with a system of rules makes it sound as though citizens are just
players in an elaborate and high-stakes game, created by humans before us, and everyone
just accept the positions they are in, in that game (accept to be ruled by others).

Anarchists see the game and say it’s rigged (some people are going to win, and some people
are going to lose).

In structural terms this is precisely what’s going on.

Realistically, you can’t drop out of that game. Citizens’ reasons for complying with the law of
their state depends on the nature of the state:
1. The Mafia State:

It might be in each citizen’s interest to do what state officials demand (to avoid
punishment), but the state is generally bad overall, and it certainly has no legitimate
authority – it has no right to order them around. They don’t make an attempt (or attempt
but fail) to make the social world in which they operate a better place for the people. It
only exists by peer threat/force. Ex.: Nazi Germany.

2. The Justified State:

The state is generally good – on the whole citizens are better off with it than without it.
There are reasons for us to support it, but not an obligation to, in any deep sense. But the
state lacks legitimate authority – it has no special right to order them around. Ex.: Saddam-
Hussein’s Iraq.

3. The Legitimate State

Either because its benefits are so great, or because the people have consented to its rule,
the state has legitimate authority over citizens – it has the right to tell them what to do
and they have a moral duty to obey, we’re doing something morally wrong if we don’t.

The State of Nature Thought Experiment: The Key Theoretical Variable

When comparing the state to the non-state situation, you need two pictures in your mind:
one of the current state of affairs and another of the future state of affairs (where the
state might get if it was reformed – the perfect state).

You can inform your theoretical analysis by looking at historical examples, but there’s a lot
more to engage with, abstract thought experiments, play with the variables, come up with
different pictures of what life without the state would be like based on different kind of
assumptions we make.

These are the three main things we make assumptions about when thinking of life without
the state:

Human Nature – how are people going to behave?

• How self-interested are individuals in the state of nature?

• If they are not wholly self-interested, what else do they care about?

• Are these motivations timeless and universal or are they dependent on the empirical
background conditions? (see below)

Empirical Background Conditions – how individualistic is life?

• How are people organised socially in the state of nature? (Highly individualistically?
In families? In small communities? In nations? How stable would each situation be?)

• What material and technological situation are they in? (Hunter-gatherer?

Agricultural? Industrial?)
Morality – are people under any moral constraints (objectively speaking)?

• Are there any moral principles that apply directly to people in the state of nature
(e.g. natural rights or duties that exist prior to the creation of legal institutions)?

• Are there any natural authority relations?

• Are there any aspects of morality that we need law to create for us?