Hobbes talks about the state of nature-- a hypothetical time where there is no government, laws, police, etc.-- as being a place that would be nasty, poor, brutish and short.  There would be constant struggle and fighting, given what he believes are four facts or truths about human beings and the world.

Many people argue that we are in a state of nature on the international level; there is no world government, each country is selfish, there is scarcity, relative equality, and the right of nature for countries.  Do you agree that we are in a state of nature on the international level?

if we are, it would seem that the solution to this (if we follow Hobbes' logic) is to create a world government.  Yet Hobbes stops short of endorsing this; claiming that a world government would not be a good idea.  why do you think Hobbes fails to endorse world government as a solution to the supposed international state of nature?  Do you think instituting a world government would resolve international tensions and fights?

Start this essay by explaining the state of nature and discussion in detail whether you think the four elements that are part of his view of this state exist at the international level.  You may include the idea that in Hobbes' world we would be fighting for defense, for glory or reputation, and for things (like property, goods, etc.).

Then discuss why it would seem that international government would be the answer, why Hobbes might say it isn't, and whether you would be for or against it. Provide arguments for your claims.

Please write one to two pages