Front page
XML Feed
Read Our
"Love your site" -- Dan Savage
"A great read" -- Fareed Zakaria
"I enjoy OxBlog very much" -- Michael Barone
OxBlog: Trying to live up to the hype since April 23, 2002!
David Adesnik, a research analyst in Washington DC, received his doctorate in international relations from Oxford.
Email David
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
The Media:
NYT
WaPo
OpinionJournal
TNR
Weekly Standard
NRO
Slate
Commentary
BBC
Other Blogs We Like:
George Washington:
InstaPundit
James Wilson:
Brett Marston
Alexis de Tocqueville:
American Scene
Crescat Sententia
Crooked Timber
Galley Slaves
Eve Tushnet
Christopher Hitchens
Theodore Roosevelt:
Amygdala
Belgravia Dispatch
Phil Carter
Joyful Christian
Joe Gandelman
Adrianne Truett
Winds of Change
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Global Guerrillas
Calvin Coolidge:
ScrappleFace
Winston Churchill:
Sasha Castel
Andrew Sullivan
Tim Blair
Franklin Roosevelt:
Kevin Drum
Josh Marshall
Matt Yglesias
Democracy Arsenal
Dan Nexon
David Ben Gurion:
GedankenPundit
Kesher Talk
Friedrich Hayek:
Jane Galt
Virginia Postrel
Natalie Solent
VodkaPundit
Matt Welch
Ronald Reagan:
Power Line
RealClearPolitics
Worldwide Standard
RedState
Liz Mair
Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
Daniel Drezner
How Appealing
# Posted 10:50 PM by Ariel David Adesnik 
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil...
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world.
In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same.
Thanks to my deficient knowledge of the Englightment, Paine's emphasis on the human need for companionship strikes me as quite interesting. From my cursory reading of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, I have the sense that in their states of nature, man has no inherent desire to interact with his fellow human beings. Instead, their is only fear.
I also find it interesting that there are apparently no women in the state of nature, even according to Paine. The omission is somewhat disturbing since, after all, there would be no man in the state of nature if not for the man and woman who gave him life and then protected him while he was a child.
If I had time to read books not about American foreign policy, I think I'd try to figure out where the whole state-of-nature idea came from. Is it a derivative of the Garden of Eden stories in the Bible? If so, why are there only Adams in the state of nature and no Eves?
So many questions. So little time.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
