State of Nature in the Modern Society
According to John Stuart Mill The state of nature that precedes civilization is where originality resides  and the society leaves its individuals to their own devices as long as they do not harm others.  But what really is the state of nature? Moreover, why this idea as it was presented by the theorists never played its real role in practice? Was the state of nature that chaotic that people choose to have a superior, rather than being free from any obstacles? Were people afraid of their fellow human beings as Hobbes insinuates?
I am working on the topic of the state of nature in the modern society, because I want to find out if there is still a state of nature in the 21st century, for example in the indigenous societies, or that is some kind of social contract or anarchy. I am doing this in order to understand how people today live and if the basic human rights, as are the right of life, the right to liberty and security, the right of freedom etc., respected in those societies.
In this paper, I will try to analyze why despite the overall technical and technological progress, the cultural development, the democratic values that we stand for and the globalization of the countries in the world, yet in some parts of Planet Earth we can meet the remnants of what Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke call the state of nature. These societies living in the state of nature are trying to tell us that not always rule of law is needed; not always people need government to live proper and in peace. The world never was, and never will be without number of people living in that state, the state of nature. If we only look at the examples of many Indigenous people round the Globe, we can see that people can live without legally established government, without constitution and without laws, and still respect each other and live in peace. This is contrary to Hobbess claims that people in the state of nature cannot live just because homo homini lupus est.  So the need for social contract is not really a need. We can observe that sometimes the human nature is egoistic, wolfish and greedy: what is mine is mine, and what is yours I want to be mine. That is a result of population growth, the limitation of the resources, the enrichment of certain class of people and the innovations and development of the world. Contrary to this, that is not the situation in many undeveloped African tribes, as I will show later in the paper.
In the first chapter of this paper, I will expose the main ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau and their picture of the state of nature. Following, in the second and last chapter, I will try to find out if there is a state of nature in the 21st century. As an example, I will be taking the Indigenous peoples and their structure of society and their development. Furthermore, I will discuss the significance of the human rights that these people have and the way they manage to exercise them in the world they live in.
There is a lot to say on this topic and there are a lot more examples on this subject, but due to limited time and resources, I will keep my research and my analysis short and within these frames. My research is contained mostly from research of the main theories or Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, relevant articles concerning the state of nature, articles concerning the life and the society of the indigenous peoples (primary and secondary sources).
1. WHAT IS STATE OF NATURE?
There are many definitions on what is state of nature. According to Hobbes: The state of nature is a state of incessant mutual exploitation, all individuals seeking to dominate one another and to acquire honor and profit (fame and fortune).  Many encyclopedias consider the state of nature as uncivilized and uncultured condition,  a wild primitive state untouched by civilization.  State of nature is described also as a condition before the introduction of the rule of law, and as a state where there are no rights but only freedoms. In such a world where there are no laws, government, power, the people are in a natural condition of humankind.
Nevertheless, the state of nature in its true form  never existed in human society. Perhaps as a state of nature we can take the examples of the emergence of human society when man was savage and lived in hordes. The human at that point of development was not aware of anything, except livelihood and survival. People acted free from all restrictions and pressures. They showed their true existence and the desire to own fulfillment. As creatures of that kind, all people were and are equal by their nature. At that stage, all people without restriction tend to insure and optimize their own fulfillment, then this unlimited competition lead to a state of complete uncertainty and danger.  Moreover, they consider themselves indispensable for the elimination of this tendency to establish a state of security and peace by entering in a civil society.  Many of the Enlightenment theorists claim that the state of nature existed in the human society, but man came out of that state because he was afraid of the other humans,  considering that in the state of nature dominates social chaos and in order to protect himself the human was obliged to conclude the social contract.
With this contract individuals freedom of self-fulfillment was restricted, so that individual freedom of all can exist together. Everyone gives up their unlimited right, accepts limitations and with that accept the security and the peace in coexistence.  Everyone has the natural right of personal fulfillment. This right of personal fulfillment cannot be abolished because it would mean the destruction of livelihood.  However, it may be restricted and in that way can exist in parallel with the other inalienable rights of all people. The restrictions are codified in legislations. Following, these restrictions were the basis of the doctrines of the Enlightenment thinkers Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume.  They created the laicism of governing and new political legitimacy of any fair ruling to be extracted from the social relations and based on respect of humans rights. 
1.1. State of nature according to Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes believed that human beings in the state of nature would behave badly towards one another.  He believed that such a condition would lead to a war of every man against every man  and make life solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.  He was strictly against the state of nature because as he said, there can be nothing worse than a life without the protection of the State,  especially since in this state there is no justice because there is no law.
Hobbes argued that there are no human rights in the state of nature.  People have natural right to do anything to preserve their own liberty or safety, and by this implies they act savagely to each other by trying to preserve their own life. This is very arguable nowadays. Every human simply by just being human is entitled with rights when born, despite on what level of development he is in, or if he is aware of the existence of human rights. For Hobbes, natural right is the human freedom to manage himself in relation to issues of his own self preservation. The man, in this capacity has an inalienable dignity, because he is a goal for himself and a kind of absolute value (man as imago dei).  This term has its roots in Genesis 1:27, wherein God created man in his own image. . .,  which does not mean that God is in human form, but rather, that humans are in images of God in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature.  The moral implications of the doctrine of imago dei are apparent in the fact that if humans are to love God, then humans must love other humans, as each is an expression of God.  This means that people are obligated to respect one another, but according to Hobbes at the end the wolfish nature of humans  dominates.
Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into civil government by mutual social contracts. Only by concluding the social contract man can save himself and become just (in this State there is no room for the unjust). He says that only the fear of death can lead to the creation of a State.  This saying in the modern world was a reason for many wars. Many rulers, dictators, tyrants, for example as Hitler did with Germany in the Second World War, were guided by Hobbess ideas that the man is obedient of the State and should delegate his rights to the Sovereign because the Sovereign is sinless and just, thus has the unlimited powers of rule and punishment.  The rulers will define good and evil for his subjects. The ruler can do no wrong, because lawful and unlawful, good and evil, are expression of the will of the ruler.  Hobbes gives authorization to the ruler to kill everyone who disobeys this will. In other words, the ruler is always right, because he has god given rights and is messenger of God, so if someone does any wrong (which will mean opposite to the rulers wishes) he will lose his life. This contradicts with one of the basic human rights  the right to life. It is not that there should be no State rules and regulations and that people should live in total anarchy, but rules that are in line with peoples rights, wishes and desires, for example regulations brought due referendum, which is a true expression of peoples will and democracy. Therefore, Hobbes, despite the pretty picture he has in mind of people being safe by concluding the social contract, is neglecting the basic human rights.  Moreover, Hobbess social contract was in favor of the ruler, not the people.
1.2. State of nature according to John Locke
Locke holds different position compared to Hobbes. He believes that people could live in a state of nature, and life would be possible even without the legally established government. The state of nature for him is pre political, but not pre moral.  Furthermore, this state of nature for him is a state of complete freedom where all people are equal and only bond by the law of nature.  He worries that an absolute sovereign, with absolute power, would be even more of a danger to us than life in the state of nature. This is positive in Lockes thought because is better to live in a state of nature where you live in complete freedom without limitations of the personal rights and liberties. On the other hand, giving the absolute power to a sovereign means that people have to obey the wishes and the demands of the ruler, rather than following their own needs and desires, and disobeying those demands leads to penalization. Why would someone want to have limited human rights? Why would someone want someone else to pressure him in doing something that is against his opinion and his beliefs? It is not the case of not having rules at all but rather that the rules should be made from the people and for the people. The people should not feel oppressed if they do something that is against ones will and feel scared of punishment if they do not meet those r