The Origin of the State
An analytical essay
Presented to Prof. Lori Alward
On this, the 20th of October, 1998
By Jared Earles

Aristotle argues that the state exists by nature. By this, he means that we
have naturally progressive steps that give rise to the formation of a state.
He argues that we naturally form family structures. From that, villages form, and a conglomeration of villages is a state. Aristotle further argues that each step naturally occurs, one perpetuating the other, because humans are social creatures.

Many more modern philosophers (i.e. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc.) argue that a state of nature is individualistic. Hobbes describes life in a state of nature as "nasty, brutish, and short."  In this natural state, each person is pitted against one another because they are overcome with greed (similar to Plato's portrait of a tyrannical soul). The basis for Hobbesian philosophy is his belief in the inherent evil of humankind. Because of this, humankind is inherently selfish. Psychologically, Freud's portrait of the human psyche reflects this selfishness. He argues that the mind is divided into the id, the ego, and the superego. The id is the natural push for survival; the superego consists of the 
moral constraints society levies, and the ego is the regulator of the two. Devoid of a governmental framework, there would be no motivating superego. Humans, in a Hobbesian state of nature, would be radically individual, and because of this, government is not a natural entity.

Aristotle's argument for the natural existence of the state is further characterized by moral ambiguity. It seems inherently coercive. By this I mean that the members do not consent to the system. The system is guided by the overarching hand of "nature" rather than the calculated choice of individuals. While Aristotle does affirm some sort of "constitution" he does not specify who would devise such a document. Thus, a government arises that does not take into account the voice of the people. Perhaps, herein lies an extensive argument which has been made numerous times (namely Locke and Rousseau). I will simply argue first that a system that does not allow the individual members of the society choice is undesirable; second, I argue that Aristotle assumes the 
validity of nature, which leads to the problems that Pierce discusses.

The counter-argument to this is simple. It is this self-interest that compels us to form a state. We recognize that it is easier to survive if we cooperate rather than seeking fortune individually. Initially, we may make this discovery on a very small scale. We find a small group and all agree to protect one another (family). Then the groups combine to form villages, and so on. The motivating factor that underlies this shift from a "state of nature" to civilization is selfishness. This does not preclude the fact that it is a natural transition.

In terms of the moral ambiguity argument, instead of directly consenting to 
government, we tacitly consent. Within each of Aristotle's stages of government, there is a level of consent, though most of it is implied. It is unnecessary to write out a "family constitution" and so forth. Additionally, it is important to note that Aristotle believed that nature was the symbol of perfection, and that those things that were not natural were undesirable. Thus, a system that was suited to nature would be the most desirable.

There is an interesting duality in the origin of the state. While we all are individuals, and it would appear that our origin lies in self-interest, the natural extension of this is a government. Given that perspective, government then becomes an artificial creation that arises naturally (or via natural means). Perhaps both Aristotle and Hobbes are correct. A more unresolved issue is the concept of consent. It seems that a nature-based approach represses the voices of individuals and places power in the all-encompassing hand of nature. This could provide a direct harm to the people. On the other hand, Aristotle argues (or assumes, according to Pierce) for the legitimacy of nature. This seems an issue beyond the scope of this simple essay.