Justification of government

Anarchists argue that government is never justified in its exercise of authority. Locke argues that government is legitimate so long as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights. Hobbes argues that government has a much broader authority to secure peace, and keep people's natural selfish instincts in check. Which of the perspectives above do you agree with the most? Do you think your answer depends on what you think human nature is like (i..e. whether people are basically selfish or essentially good? Explain your answer on your blog. I will agree with Hobbes' argument. It ssems to me he is right that government has a much broader authority to secure peace, and keep people's natural selfish instincts in check. Lets just imagine what would happen with our society if there was no government. This would simply lead to anarchy. It would be pure choas, full inequality, an elite ruling calls, murder, human rights violations and greed. Who would make all of the major decisions around there? We need someone has to be in charge to have order, otherwise everybody would be doing whatever they wanted. We need government to protect us from criminals by having a police force, protect us from domestic terrorism and foreign invasions by having an army and establishes law courts to settle disputes swiftly. We face many big problems in our society – global warming, the swine-flu threat, persistent poverty, an ongoing healthcare crisis, vastly unequal educational opportunities, a looming pension crisis. The government is the only institution capable of dealing with these pressing issues. On balance, government programs have a very positive impact on our lives – that government has been a powerful force for good in our society. The good life as we know it literally could not exist without the constant assistance and protection we all get from an extensive network of government laws and programs.