I don't know if this counts, but I'm a big fan of market anarchism, as explained by David Friedman.

I would question the universality of Hobbes' premise to the extent that it appears to be formed, in large part, by his personal experiences during the English Civil War.

(Perhaps, to those caught up in the conditions that give rise to civil war, the yearning for order and stability is such that a "strongman" appears necessitous or desirable.)

I read Hobbes as saying, 'left to ourselves, we inevitably resort to war' (which fits with his famous "nasty, brutish, and short" characterization of the state of nature).

It seems to me that this sort of overt conflict typically stems from and is triggered by conditions more specific than "human nature." That is, if awe is all that's keeping society from tearing itself apart, something has already gone badly wrong.

Then again, perhaps Hobbes is right - maybe we are so accustomed to living in a society governed by awe/deterrence that we underestimate its importance. After all, dystopian or utopian, reference to a "state of nature" (a premise that is necessarily sans-society) is always conjecture insofar as those making it have already been shaped by socialization.

Wow, that was long-winded. To sum: Hobbes generalizes from the society and conditions he knew to a possibly unwarranted conclusion about the ageless, intrinsic aspects of human nature.

I hesitate to classify anything as universalizable (hence my issues with Kant), but I do think Hobbes' claim here has merit and that the natural tendency of humanity is to act in accordance with individual interest. However, this is still a tendency, not a universal law. As stated in the chimpanzee article that we read earlier this week, sometimes our own good can be best achieved by working with the community. If left without a definite authoritative body, I think chaos might reign for a while, but people would eventually realize that survival is more sustainable through cooperation. Ideally, this notion of mutual survival and mutual good would be the incentive for maintaining social order, but since I know that's a bit of a stretch, I do think we need "awe" or incentives. Maybe one of those factors would be enough to balance our naturally selfish tendencies with the good of the society as a whole.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if the United States did not elect George Washington as our first president. Our head officials then would have been Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, two individuals who could agree on very little (when it comes to policy). George Washington was the glue that held the two ideological arguments they had together. Without Washington, We probably would have never remained a unified nation. I believe that we need strong leaders in difficult times. For example, President Obama is our strong leader now, and we have bet everything (our nations survival, even) on him to get us out of the economic nightmare that we are living through.

But I also believe that a leader must know when he has fulfilled his purpose and needs to step down. George Washington could have stayed President until the day he died, but he knew when enough was enough. Political leaders walk that fine line between what it means to be Great and when Greatness can turn into dictatorship.

The concept of a "strongman" is one ill stand behind. Every nation, tribe, community, ect, needs a leader to maintain order. I believe that people are innately good, but when a conflict arises these same good people can loose control. Without laws and the "strongman" or "strong-men" to enforce them there is no reason for a person not to act impulsively, or irrationally. I think most of society wants to be a law abiding citizen but sometimes when one doesn't agree with the law there needs "awe" or an incentive or in some cases the threat of a punishment to maintain order. Although fear is an efficient way to try to make society follow polices, it is not the only way, offering rewards or bonus's can also be an incentive. If a leader of a community, country, ect. can generate a positive attitude among his fellow citizens, and if his citizens trust him than perhaps there wouldn't be a need for incentives.

I think there does need to be some sort of fear to keep social order. If nobody was afraid of the government's punishments, then crime would skyrocket and people would just do whatever they felt like. The fear needs to be reasonable though. Citizens can't live in a state of constant fear that they might mess up.

I It is really hard to think of how there could be order in society without some sense of fear. To think that even before there were any governments in such places as early America, just tribes of indians. The indians were taught to keep some sort of role or order in their tribes otherwise the rain god or some other god could become upset. But then there is also the power that a government has to rule over its people, which is also by fear. It seems that society does in most cases that I can think of have to be kept in order by the fear of a leader, the wrath of a god, or the overwhelming power a government can have.

I agree, in that, I believe fear is essential in keeping a world from being consumed by competition. As I was reading, my thoughts kind of headed in the same direction as Ryne's comment; back to the most basic form of control in a community, religion. When whoever it was, God or humans completely by their own doing, wrote the bible and in turn the 10 commandments, he / they knew that in order to avoid pure chaos these basic rules had to be set. After all, almost every commandment has to do with ones interaction with their neighbor. And the phrase that is repeated in the bible numerous times, "Fear God," completely supports Hobbes theory.

I agree to a certain degree that a level of fear helps keep people in order. For example why is there not more murders? perhaps because the penalty of doing so could result in death. However societies need to balance order and fear. Chnia's approach of execution for any and all crimes does not work. We must have some time of incentive to remain in-order in addition to fear.

Folks such as Hobbes certainly have a pretty bleak, non-sociological view of human nature, that carried policy implications through to figures such as Madison ("we're not angels" etc.), and politics in the modern era. But in response to his specific claim about common powers and war, I'd take a both/and perspective on this one--rather than the either/or trajectory between war and community. Check out this quote from Kenneth Burke in A Rhetoric of Motives:
"In the end, men [sic] are brought to that most tragically ironic of all divisions, or conflicts, wherein millions of cooperative acts go into the preparation of one single, destructive act. We refer to that ultimate disease of cooperation: war. (You will understand war much better if you think of it, not simply as strife come to a head. . . . Modern war characteristically requires a myriad of constructive acts for each destructive one; before each cultiminating blast there must be a vast network of interlocking operations, directed communally)" (22).
If war is the ultimate disease of cooperation, it doesn't precede our allegiance to common powers, but is perhaps always coterminous with it. Don Waisanen

I think we need a balance of "Fear" and "incentive". If we have too much of one, then I don't think society will react in the way we want. If we make the citizens too afraid, I think they will resist. If we give too many incentives, it might not be efficient and successful for us. I also think having a strongman is necessary. I do not feel that a society can have order without some type of leadership and I don't feel that a government like a Parliament that doesn't have a single leader will work. Even if that leader doesn't have as much power as it looks, there is still a figurehead to keep order. I think just the idea of a single person leading with help from other branches keeps the people in order.