THE HARM PRICIPLE

The main reason we have a state is to protect us from the “state of nature,” as Hobbes states, “to protect us from a life that is hard, brutish and short.”  Well, what does that mean?  It paints a bleak picture of human kind and makes us all rational gains maximizers who do not care about anyone other than us individually and maybe our inner circles.  Therefore, we need the state further: from protection of others we need it to also redistribute wealth and opportunity and enforce that with legitimate authority.  As our systems evolve we can educate the masses and need less or a weaker state on our way to almost anarchic conditions, in my view a good thing. As we civilize the masses we move away from needing a strong state to one that systems can work automatically as the people will realize that for peace everyone needs good socio-economic conditions to have legitimacy and flourish without the need of batons to enforce it. Mainland China is a great example of this.  One objection to this is that it may need undemocratic beginnings through historical evolutions to get people to this realization.  Once we evolve then we should just focus on a legitimate and weak state which abides by Mill’s, “Harm Principle.” in almost anarchic conditions. Meaning using local governments to decide what is harm which can be confusing to some but after mass education most should come to a realization.  Deciding what is harm could become tyrannical and we must also put things in place to avoid a tyranny of the majority and thus lead to proportional representative government if we are to have government at all.  Maybe a weak global system with stong local governments. But one in the end should focus on the Mills harm principal.