Lerios, Janine Kyla G. Activity #1.

2
BSN 3-YB-11 PPGC 111

Write a minimum of 200 words for each number.

1. Do you agree with Thomas Hobbes that life in a stateless society would be nasty, brutish, and short? Why?
Qualify your answer.

According to the lesson from last week, a state is a group of people who are more or less numerous, who
consistently occupy a specific area of land, who have their government to which the majority of citizens
consistently submit, and who are unconstrained by outside forces. Hobbes' "Leviathan," which was published in
1651, is the most comprehensive, convincing, and eloquent argument in favor of adhering to a governmental
authority, even when the ruler is inadequate, to prevent anarchy and violence. Thomas Hobbes claimed in
Leviathan that the social compact, or connection between individuals and their government, should be in order,
control, and security with a defense of complete submission and obedience to established authority. Hobbes'
central argument is that if humans had been left to their own devices without a supreme leader to keep them in
awe, they would have quickly descended into squabbling, infighting, and intolerable bickering, just as the
animal kingdom has demonstrated the strive for a life of animals. To understand Hobbes' argument, one must
imagine the life of the animals in a jungle without a supreme leader, which would not have been a pretty place.
A person ought to yield their right to privacy to a leader. A society without a government would experience
anarchy and disaster within its borders; a society without a leader would only see abuse of freedom and
devastation. A civilization without a strong central figure would not endure for very long. We can see that
Thomas Hobbes' main concern in this statement is the safety of the populace. How much a territory's residents
should surrender to their ruler is in question. According to Hobbes, "Though of so boundless a power, men may
conceive many awful implications, but the consequences of its lack, which is a continual war of each man
against his neighbor, are much worse." An illustration of this would be the EDSA People Power Revolution, in
which millions of Filipinos marched along EDSA to put an end to President Ferdinand E. Marcos' dictatorship
and usher in a period of genuine freedom and democracy. According to Thomas Hobbes' philosophy, the
inhabitants of an area should still accept the dictates of the ruler even if that ruler is faulty.

2. Does the existence of law in a state restricts or restraint our freedom? Prove your stance.
No, because a state's laws are set up to achieve harmony between its citizens and the environment. Law and
freedom are complementary concepts that cannot coexist as our freedoms would be compromised in the absence
of law. We would have to live in a hunter-gatherer community if we were to live in a society without any laws.
In contrast, if there were no laws and authorities to protect us from snatchers, murderers, etc., then our lives
might be in danger and it would prevent us from doing what we want, which is to go out for a night on the town.
For instance, I have the freedom to walk through our streets without worrying at night. In conclusion, laws
serve to protect us and limit our freedom if they did not exist. Our human rights give us control over ourselves,
and the law acts as a guide so that we do not misuse or engage in evil doings with our freedom. No law should
infringe on someone's freedom of speech or expression, or the people's right to express concerns and ask the
government to address grievances, since we have the power to elect them to their positions and the right to
remove them if there is evidence of their wrongdoings.