Under Construction Journal Issue 6.1 UNDER CONSTRUCTION JOURNAL 6.1 | Page 76

Our nature can become corrupted if we do not have a restraining figure. Ibn Khaldūn presents ‘injustice’
and ‘mutual aggression’ as the consequence of our corruption. As we can become aggressive, if there
were no restraining figure we would be drawn to unlawfully take others’ property. A ruler’s a priori
responsibility is to prevent the unlawful appropriation of property.
When considering Hobbes’s opposition to philosophical anarchism, it is important to contrast the state of
nature (anarchy) with the commonwealth. Hobbes expounds that when there is anarchy, ‘There is
Alwayes Warre of Every One Against Every One [sic].’ This state of war ‘consisteth not in Battell onely
[sic].’ Instead of constant warfare, there is precariousness. He presents the analogy of weather: ‘as the
nature of Foule weather [sic]’ does not signify that there will be constant precipitation, there is ‘an
inclination thereto of many dayes together [sic]’ of rainfall. Our conflict, analogously, would not always
occur; instead, there would be a constant fear of violence.
Hobbes maintains a misanthropic thesis of human nature by postulating that ‘men have no pleasure’;
instead, they have a ‘great deale of griefe [sic]’ in co-operation, when ‘there is no power able to over-awe
them all.’ He expands on his view of human nature in the following way:
i. Competition ‘maketh men invade for Gain [sic]’;
ii. Diffidence means that individuals invade ‘for Safety [sic]’;
iii. Glory signifies that men invade ‘for Reputation [sic].’
Clearly, if I oppress my neighbour for gain, glory, or reputation, I am not a political being; I am merely
interested in pursuing the most self-interestedly opportune option for myself. Thus, anarchy means that
‘every man is Enemy to every man [sic]’, and ‘there is no place for Industry’: the ‘fruit thereof is uncertain.’
Given that anarchism signifies that there is no ruler to protect life and property, my ability to keep my
property is contingent on my strength. I might cultivate apples, and a stronger aggressor could take my
produce. As there would be no institutions to protect me, I would not be incentivised to cultivate apples
in the future. If this were to occur with all commodities, there would be insufficient resources for
subsistence. We would, consequently, be restricted from free movement due to us not having the means
to satisfy our biological needs. Hence, life in the state of nature is ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short
[sic].’
A close analysis of the political thought of Ibn Khaldūn and Hobbes shows that both theorists
present the importance of political obligation, as we can become misanthropic. If there is a restraining
67