View Full Version : The State of Nature

Sunday, March 29th, 2009, 05:52 AM
TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of weakness and dependency.

The nature of the individual is so weak that he could scarcely hope to eke out a Robinson Crusoe-like existence by his unique energies alone. His personal abilities are so unfit as to even produce for his own basic necessities that his social nature most certainly must be presupposed. That combined with the physical weakness of youth and old age make it impossible to think of man as anything other than a social being, relegated to various kin-roles within a given community.

The inherent weakness of man is so central to his psychic condition and socialization that in a state of nature he primarily defines himself not as an individual but as a tribal member; as a fundamental component of a living, predefined in-group.

Every individual defines himself as belonging to an in-group (truly, various levels of in-groups). The only way to define an in-group is by comparing it to an out-group. The most natural and basic in-group/out-group definition is ethnic, as the family is the basic building block of socialization and blood-ties are stronger then that of contractual ties.

All in-groups focus on their own endowed strengths and other out-groups' weaknesses, as the out-group is a natural competitor of the in-group for acquisition of females, game, land, and other scarce resources. Therefore, the in-group primarily sees what it defines as the good in his own in-group, and the bad in other out-groups. We can deduce from this assumption that a given in-group will build a society that tends to focus on the given strength of its own members, as a source of necessity and ultimately as a source of pride.

An in-group is either conservative (static) or liberal (change) depending on their own perceived best interest and status within a society, therefore any group can be conservative or liberal given their situation within the hierarchy of nature and society. Regardless, man's sense of strength and purpose lies in his identity within his given in-group, despite his changing roles in relation to the tribal entity.

Hierarchy is the natural consequence of man's inequality. Man accepts hierarchy within his accepted in-group, but man will not accept lowering himself to an out-group that he naturally sees as being inferior and unworthy of their status as superiors. Therefore, we can deduce that the individual will bend his will to a higher ranking member of his in-group before doing the same to an even higher ranking individual from an out-group.

The result of this fundamental lack of reciprocal recognition is that of endemic warfare and constant, relentless property rights violations.

Therefore, the true state of nature is a state of perpetual warfare, carried out by whatever means necessary at the disposal of the given in-group towards other out-groups.

From this perspective we could be led to believe that the dictum of Von Clausewitz was backwards, and that politics (especially multicultural politics) is nothing but war carried out (by sublimated means) under the scrutiny of a higher coercive authority.

Henceforth, multicultural empires are nothing but the state of war carried out through the arbiter of the state which skews the natural strengths and weaknesses of the tribes under its jurisdiction in order to assist the will of the given in-group in power.

Therefore, we can assume over time that the given self-defined in-groups living under a single compulsive tax-levying jurisdiction will tend to polarize themselves until the bonds that bind the multicultural state will become permanently undone.