I was recently made aware of a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip that closely relates to my theory of human nature and the need for a system of leadership. In this comic strip a child named moe pushes calvin, a weaker child, off the swing.
This is a perfect example of the people in their natural state. Here we see the inconvenience of human interaction. Why is this ruthlessness allowed without punishment, you ask? Although it’s ideal for the playground ruler to have absolute power every system has cracks, from which certain impulse brutishness escapes. In this case our leader lacks omnipresence.
I do find Calvin’s assertion that rules are only for little nice people to be somewhat truthful. Little nice people benefit the most from rules in the immediate sense, so it is in their interest to have rules enforced. When the “little nice people” come together under a leader, the rules on a wide scale become for everybody. …show more content…
Without a ruler, what happened to Calvin would become widespread. Even a transition in rulers couldn’t be risked. The moment insecurity was noticed, each person would act with self interest. One would justify this by either thinking “ I must protect myself and those close to me” or by thinking “This is a chance to gain status, which will help me in all sorts of ways in this world.” One is more sinister than the other but both are motivations for people to create and engage in the chaos that follows a change in power.
Government can’t protect each individual, but rather is there to ensure the security of the masses, who they’re socially engaged to. The best way to protect Calvin, is to redirect Moe’s selfishness towards bettering the kingdom. It makes sense that to keep the individuals from subjecting one another to their natural state that a government redirects that natural to bettering the nation, As nations themselves are selfish bodies.
This is a perfect example of the people in their natural state. Here we see the inconvenience of human interaction. Why is this ruthlessness allowed without punishment, you ask? Although it’s ideal for the playground ruler to have absolute power every system has cracks, from which certain impulse brutishness escapes. In this case our leader lacks omnipresence.
I do find Calvin’s assertion that rules are only for little nice people to be somewhat truthful. Little nice people benefit the most from rules in the immediate sense, so it is in their interest to have rules enforced. When the “little nice people” come together under a leader, the rules on a wide scale become for everybody. …show more content…
Without a ruler, what happened to Calvin would become widespread. Even a transition in rulers couldn’t be risked. The moment insecurity was noticed, each person would act with self interest. One would justify this by either thinking “ I must protect myself and those close to me” or by thinking “This is a chance to gain status, which will help me in all sorts of ways in this world.” One is more sinister than the other but both are motivations for people to create and engage in the chaos that follows a change in power.
Government can’t protect each individual, but rather is there to ensure the security of the masses, who they’re socially engaged to. The best way to protect Calvin, is to redirect Moe’s selfishness towards bettering the kingdom. It makes sense that to keep the individuals from subjecting one another to their natural state that a government redirects that natural to bettering the nation, As nations themselves are selfish bodies.