Hobbes believed solely in a society run by a King and was convinced that there was no hope for humanity otherwise. During his time, the Parliamentarians believed that the legislature should maintain control of the country. With that being said I feel like the least dystopian-like form of government is one that is truly democratic, or pro-citizens. Hobbes explained that a society with no government or structure is one of chaos, where everyone within it is at war with each other. There can’t be a world where no one feels secure, one that is lawless, it would just lead to a well-shaped dystopia, but a world where the government has complete control is no better. Hobbes’ idea that one person, a monarch, specifically being in charge of a whole country because he seems Gold-like, is setting up a society with high expectations and seems rather tyrannical. A government should be able to enforce laws that are in the best interest of the society, not one that forces its people to be perfect citizens which would result under a royalist rule. Hobbes’ chapter on the “State of Nature,” revealed that in one’s attempt to avoid what they fear the most they must activate animalistic parts of them that puts them at war with everyone else. A society without framework will be one of constant competition, lack of advancement due to unrelenting distrust, and fueled by the pursuit of glory. To avoid the outbreak of mayhem, a government that puts its people first is what will sustain humanity without overwhelming oppressive acts. Hobbes’ chapter reflects on the idea that there can’t be a system of oppression without a system which seems to call for the need for a system in order for anyone to feel unequal. This notion is what places me in favor of autonomy, but then seeing how barbaric that would be, brings me right back to a society with all three branches: judicial, legislative, and executive. Although not perfect, democracy is the best way to avoid a complete dystopian society.Â
Hobbes references “savages,” in his chapter and how their way of life is “brutish,” because there’s no common power to fear. I feel as if a democracy should only have to fear their government lacking the security and resources to protect themselves and prevent disarray. Laws and guidelines should be enforced and followed, but not to an extreme where any one group feels oppressed or unequal. The least dystopian form of government would be one that exists (Federal), but with modifications. The people deserve to not only have a right to their voice, but the ability to actually be heard. What’s the point of a democracy, if the people never truly get a say on issues that pertain to them? Yes, the government has society’s interest at best, but the ideal government would call for more inclusivity. Democracy is key because it allows for a less restrictive way of life for people, access to certain freedoms that other governments prohibit, and an overflow of nationalism. A democratic government will keep society in line without allowing for any one branch of government to gain too much power. The government just needs more representation of all citizens from all backgrounds in order to make conscious decisions on all people. This way the government’s abuse of its position can be held to a minimum, if any at all.
