The assertion, attributed to a prominent 17th-century English philosopher, encapsulates a specific perspective on the natural state of humanity and the necessity of governance. This particular phrasing reflects a pessimistic view of human nature, suggesting inherent self-interest and a predisposition to conflict in the absence of a strong central authority. For instance, the phrase is often invoked to illustrate the rationale behind the social contract theory, where individuals relinquish certain freedoms in exchange for security and order.
Its enduring significance lies in its ability to spark debate about the fundamental characteristics of human beings and the role of political institutions. The quote prompts consideration of whether order is primarily maintained through imposed authority or through inherent social tendencies. Historically, it has influenced political thought, informing arguments for both authoritarian and more limited forms of government, depending on interpretation and contextual application. Its impact is felt across fields like political science, sociology, and even international relations.
Consequently, further examination into the foundational principles of social contract theory, the philosophical underpinnings of political legitimacy, and the historical interpretations of governance models is warranted. These analyses will allow for a deeper appreciation of the complexities inherent in establishing and maintaining a stable society.
1. State of Nature
Before the rise of cities, before the establishment of laws, lay the philosophical concept of the State of Nature. This pre-societal condition, envisioned most vividly in association with a certain famous pronouncement, becomes the crucial backdrop against which to understand the philosopher’s reasoning regarding the necessity of government.
-
Absence of Authority
In this theoretical existence, no overarching power reigns. Each individual exists as a sovereign unto themselves, with no superior force to enforce rules or mediate disputes. This freedom, however, quickly transforms into a precarious existence, as the lack of regulation fosters an environment of distrust and potential conflict. The quote highlights the instability inherent in a system devoid of centralized control.
-
Equality and Scarcity
Hobbes posited that humans are fundamentally equal in their capacity to harm one another, leading to a generalized fear. Compounding this is the assumption of scarcity. Limited resources create competition for survival. Combined, these factors lead to a constant state of unease, where every individual is a potential threat, and every possession is vulnerable to seizure. The phrase reminds us that equality absent order begets insecurity.
-
The War of All Against All
The infamous line vividly paints the picture of the State of Nature as a “war of all against all.” It does not necessarily imply constant physical violence, but rather a perpetual readiness to fight and a lack of assurance of safety. Each person is driven by their own self-interest, and there’s no guarantee that anyone will respect the rights or property of others. This element brings to light the consequence of unchecked self-interest, thus giving more reason to believe in the necessity of control.
-
Motivation for Social Contract
The dire conditions inherent in the State of Nature ultimately provide the justification for the social contract. People, seeking escape from the constant fear and potential for violent death, rationally choose to surrender some of their individual freedoms to a sovereign power in exchange for security and order. The quote, therefore, becomes the compelling reason why individuals would willingly accept the restraints of government.
Thus, the philosopher’s well-known words are not merely a pessimistic observation, but a foundational element in constructing an argument for the necessity of structured governance. It presents a challenge to idealist notions of inherent human goodness, instead grounding political philosophy in a pragmatic assessment of human nature and the conditions required for social stability.
2. Social Contract
The shadow of a celebrated phrase looms large over the concept of the social contract. It serves not only as a stark reminder of the potential for societal collapse, but also as a foundational rationale for the very existence of ordered governance. Picture, if one will, the pre-dawn hours of civilization, a time not of inherent virtue, but of untamed self-interest. Humanity, as portrayed within the sentiment, exists in a perpetual state of potential conflict, each individual a threat to the other. It is from this looming dread that the social contract emerges, a covenant born not of idealism, but of sheer necessity.
This agreement, though seldom explicitly written, forms the bedrock of any stable society. Individuals, motivated by the primal instinct for self-preservation, implicitly relinquish certain freedoms in exchange for the security and order provided by a sovereign power. Consider, for example, the act of paying taxes. One sacrifices a portion of personal wealth, a tangible freedom, for the collective benefits of infrastructure, defense, and social welfare. Or contemplate the acceptance of laws, restraining individual actions to prevent harm to others. These everyday compromises are echoes of the fundamental bargain at the heart of social contract theory. Without the chilling premonition embedded in the articulation, the motivation for such compromise might seem less compelling. The phrase, therefore, casts the social contract as not merely desirable, but existentially necessary.
The significance of understanding this connection lies in appreciating the delicate balance between liberty and security. The agreement, informed by the implications of the cautionary expression, must ensure that the sovereign power does not become as tyrannical as the state of nature it was designed to prevent. The challenge lies in crafting governance structures that provide adequate protection without unduly infringing upon individual freedoms, a balancing act perpetually informed by the philosophical contemplation of humanity’s inherent nature. The essence is that an appreciation of the potential for chaos helps to inform and shape the kind of social contracts needed to create and sustain ordered societies.
3. Absolute Sovereignty
The long shadow cast by a noted 17th-century assertion extends to the concept of absolute sovereignty. The stark depiction of human existence without governance serves as a compelling justification for the concentration of power. This concept, where ultimate authority rests in a single entity, stands as a direct response to the perceived chaos of the natural state, offering a solution predicated on the belief that only unquestioned power can quell inherent human tendencies.
-
The Leviathan’s Mandate
The sovereign, envisioned as the Leviathan, requires unyielding authority to enforce laws and maintain order. The legitimacy of this power derives from the social contract, where individuals willingly surrender freedoms in exchange for protection. Without absolute power, the Leviathan is toothless, unable to prevent the descent back into the “war of all against all” so vividly described. An example might be seen in periods of martial law, where civil liberties are curtailed in the name of public safety, justifying exceptional powers for the governing authority.
-
Prevention of Factionalism
Divided authority invites conflict. Separate factions vie for power, weakening the state and creating opportunities for societal unrest. The famous line underlines the danger of fragmented power, with each group pursuing its own interests to the detriment of the whole. History offers numerous examples, such as the Wars of the Roses in England or the religious conflicts in 16th-century France, demonstrating how competing factions can destabilize a nation and plunge it into chaos, thus illustrating the rationale for centralized and absolute control.
-
Enforcement of the Social Contract
The social contract is not self-enforcing. Some individuals will inevitably be tempted to break the rules for personal gain. Only a sovereign with absolute power can deter such transgressions and ensure that the terms of the contract are upheld. Consider laws against theft; without a credible threat of punishment, the incentive to steal becomes overwhelming, undermining the very foundation of a society based on property rights. Here, the phrase serves as a cautionary tale about the fragility of agreements in the absence of enforcement.
-
Limits on Individual Liberty
The justification for absolute sovereignty comes at a cost: the restriction of individual liberty. Citizens are expected to obey the sovereign’s commands without question, even if they disagree. This trade-off is deemed necessary to prevent the greater evil of societal collapse. However, this limitation prompts continuous debate regarding the acceptable boundaries of government power, the tension between collective security and individual rights remaining a central theme in political thought, particularly when recalling the implications of humanity’s inherent nature without governing structures.
In essence, the philosopher’s grim pronouncement on the state of nature directly informs the argument for absolute sovereignty. It is a prescription, albeit a controversial one, for avoiding the perceived horrors of a life without law, order, and a supreme authority capable of enforcing its will. The legacy continues to spark debate about the ideal balance between authority and freedom, forever colored by the stark warning of a world without a governing power.
4. Human Self-Interest
The shadow of a renowned utterance concerning the human condition falls squarely upon the landscape of self-interest. Imagine a solitary figure, adrift in a boundless sea, resource-less save for cunning and the primal drive to survive. This, in essence, is the philosophical stage set by the philosopher. The individual, stripped of societal constraints, operates solely on the principle of self-preservation. The dictum suggests that this inherent selfishness, unchecked, precipitates a state of perpetual conflict. This is not to condemn humanity, but rather to acknowledge a fundamental operating principle. Consider a famine, where desperation compels individuals to acts they might otherwise deem unthinkable. Such scenarios, while extreme, illuminate the raw power of self-interest when societal structures crumble, echoing the chilling prospect presented in that famous phrase. Therefore, understanding this inclination is not merely academic, but crucial for comprehending the proposed rationale for governance.
The notion that individuals prioritize their own well-being serves as the bedrock upon which the social contract is built. Individuals, recognizing the futility and inherent dangers of constant competition, rationally choose to cede certain freedoms to a sovereign power. The social contract, therefore, arises not from altruism, but from the enlightened self-interest of individuals seeking security and stability. For example, speed limits on highways, though restricting individual freedom to drive at will, ultimately serve the collective self-interest by reducing accidents and ensuring safer roads for all. This agreement acknowledges the propensity for self-serving behavior and channels it into a system that benefits the entire community. Laws governing property rights, contracts, and commerce, all reflect this calculated approach to regulating self-interest for the common good, ensuring that individuals benefit through mutual adherence to a set of enforceable rules.
In conclusion, the philosophical insight of the inherent self-interest of humanity, as underlined by the celebrated observation, highlights an essential element in the function of society. The recognition of human self-preservation is essential to promote social cooperation. Accepting that individuals will inevitably pursue their own advantage allows the construction of systems that regulate this pursuit, preventing it from descending into the chaos so potently illustrated. The great challenge lies in constantly calibrating the balance between individual freedom and collective security, recognizing that an understanding of human nature, with its innate self-interest, is vital in finding such balance.
5. Fear and Order
The specter of a well-known pronouncement hangs heavily over the relationship between fear and order, for in its essence it encapsulates a brutal equation. Imagine a world devoid of law, a landscape painted not with pastoral scenes but with the stark, unforgiving strokes of constant threat. In such a realm, fear reigns supreme, an omnipresent force driving every action, every decision. It is not the fear of a specific enemy, but the existential dread of all others, a wariness that permeates every interaction. The philosophers words present this as the natural state, a condition to be escaped at all costs. Consequently, order emerges not from some innate sense of justice, but from the calculated desire to mitigate this pervasive fear. A community, no matter how fractured, will ultimately seek refuge in a structure that promises even a modicum of security. Fear, then, becomes the catalyst, the relentless driver pushing humanity towards a structured society, a society where the unknown terrors of the wild are replaced by the familiar constraints of governance.
History is replete with examples of this dynamic. Consider the aftermath of widespread social upheaval, where societies, reeling from chaos and violence, often embrace even autocratic rule as a respite from the constant threat. The rise of strongmen following periods of anarchy is a testament to this fundamental human drive. Or observe the response to natural disasters; in the face of widespread destruction and the collapse of infrastructure, individuals often prioritize collective survival, accepting centralized control and resource allocation to ensure the continued existence of the community. It is not an endorsement of authoritarianism, but a recognition of the powerful impulse to seek order when confronted with overwhelming fear. The dictum, therefore, is not a prescription, but an observation, a sobering assessment of the conditions under which societies willingly trade freedom for security. The need to understand this dynamic is of key importance when exploring political structures. The famous quote serves as a stark reminder that the absence of order does not simply lead to inconvenience, but to the very real and omnipresent existence of fear.
In essence, the relationship between fear and order, as illuminated by the philosopher’s grim assessment, is one of cause and effect. The fear born of chaos begets the demand for order, a demand so fundamental that societies will often accept significant limitations on individual liberty in exchange for its promise. While the desirability of such a trade-off remains a subject of perpetual debate, the underlying principle, that fear drives the pursuit of order, remains a powerful and enduring insight into the human condition. It should be noted that while order mitigates fear, it also risks creating a new kind of fear; the fear of oppression, the fear of the sovereign. This duality underscores the challenge of constructing a society that provides both security and freedom, a balance that must be constantly recalibrated in light of the inherent human tendency to seek order in the face of fear, a tendency starkly illuminated by a famous quote.
6. Leviathan Metaphor
The echo of a celebrated phrase reverberates through the halls of political thought, finding its most potent embodiment in the Leviathan. The metaphor, drawn from biblical lore, presents a powerful image of an artificial man, a sovereign entity constructed from the collective will of the people. It is a direct response to the perceived horrors of a world absent authority, a world so vividly depicted in those familiar words. The Leviathan, therefore, becomes the necessary antidote to the chaos, the embodiment of order wrested from the jaws of anarchy. The relationship between the assertion regarding humanity’s inherent state and the symbol of the Leviathan is not merely coincidental, but intrinsically linked, each informing and justifying the other.
-
The Sovereign as a Collective Being
The Leviathan is not a single individual, but a representation of the entire commonwealth, its power derived from the consent of the governed. Each citizen is a component part, surrendering individual sovereignty to create a unified and all-powerful entity. This is not a call for divine right, but a pragmatic argument for the concentration of power in the hands of a sovereign capable of enforcing the social contract. Consider a modern-day government; its legitimacy rests not on its inherent goodness, but on its ability to provide security and stability, reflecting the Leviathan’s purpose. The phrase serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences should that authority falter, underscoring the need for a strong and unified sovereign.
-
The Sword and the Scepter: Power and Justice
The Leviathan holds both the sword, symbolizing the power to enforce laws, and the scepter, representing the authority to rule. This duality is crucial for maintaining order. The sword alone is tyranny, the scepter without the sword is impotence. The phrase about a state of conflict implies that justice cannot exist without the power to compel obedience. The courts, police, and military, all serve as modern manifestations of the Leviathan’s sword, ensuring that laws are upheld and that the social contract is enforced. The assertion that power requires justice helps to highlight the checks and balances required in legal system.
-
The Mortal God: Limits and Responsibilities
The Leviathan, though possessing immense power, is not immortal. It is a mortal god, subject to decay and dissolution should it fail to fulfill its primary purpose: the protection of its citizens. The dictum, therefore, is not a blind endorsement of authoritarianism. The sovereign is responsible for maintaining order, but also for ensuring the well-being of the commonwealth. A government that becomes tyrannical or fails to provide security risks forfeiting its legitimacy and collapsing into the very chaos it was designed to prevent. Therefore, a system of checks and balances may exist to protect the governed from overreach of the governing body.
-
The Sea Monster as a Symbol of Control
The image of a sea monster is apt because it is a symbol of power of a force of nature. It requires strength and expertise to tame such a beast and direct its energy. The famous quote acts as a reminder for us to consider if governments are as powerful as Leviathan and that if we give them power, we are the ones that should tame and control them for the benefit of all.
In conclusion, the Leviathan metaphor is inextricably linked to the philosophical observation concerning humanity’s condition in the absence of governance. It provides a concrete image of the sovereign power necessary to escape the perceived horrors of the natural state. The Leviathan, as both a symbol of power and a reminder of responsibility, continues to provoke debate about the ideal form of governance, forever colored by the stark warning of a world without order.
7. Political Philosophy
Political philosophy grapples with fundamental questions of governance, justice, and the relationship between the individual and the state. It seeks to understand the ideal organization of society and the principles that should guide political action. The enduring relevance of a certain well-known observation lies in its direct challenge to optimistic views of human nature, forcing political philosophy to confront the darker aspects of the human condition and to construct theories of governance that account for inherent self-interest and the potential for conflict. This is not simply an academic exercise, but a crucial undertaking with profound implications for the structure of societies and the lives of individuals within them.
-
Legitimacy of the State
Political philosophy wrestles with the question of what gives a state the right to rule. Does it derive from divine authority, tradition, or consent of the governed? The philosopher’s articulation on the state of nature provides a powerful justification for state power based on the need to escape a brutal and chaotic existence. A state that can effectively provide security and order gains legitimacy, even if it requires the sacrifice of certain individual freedoms. However, the degree of authority and the trade-offs between liberty and security remain central points of contention within political discourse. Consider a situation where a government implements strict surveillance measures in response to a terrorist threat; while some may see this as a necessary infringement on privacy to ensure safety, others may view it as an overreach of state power that undermines fundamental rights. This illustrates the complexities in the balance between liberty and safety.
-
The Social Contract Tradition
The idea that government is based on an implicit agreement between the ruler and the ruled is a cornerstone of political philosophy. The philosopher’s famous statement on pre-societal existence profoundly shapes this tradition, positing that individuals rationally surrender some of their freedoms to a sovereign in exchange for protection and order. This agreement, however, is not static but constantly renegotiated as societies evolve. The challenge lies in ensuring that the terms of the contract remain just and equitable, preventing the sovereign from becoming tyrannical. Examples of this can be seen in historical struggles for civil rights and democratic reforms, which challenge existing power structures and demand greater accountability from those in authority.
-
Justice and the Common Good
Political philosophy seeks to define what constitutes a just society and how to promote the common good. Does justice require equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, or some other standard? What is the role of the state in redistributing wealth and providing social welfare? The philosopher’s quote prompts a sober assessment of human motivations, suggesting that appeals to altruism and collective action may be insufficient to create a stable and prosperous society. The phrase forces a consideration of how to design institutions that align individual incentives with the common good, fostering cooperation and minimizing conflict. For instance, taxation policies, healthcare access, and the protection of natural resources reflect differing ideas of what the role of governments should play in building a fair society for all.
-
The Limits of Government Power
A fundamental question in political philosophy is how to limit the power of the state and protect individual liberties. The philosopher’s defense of absolute sovereignty raises concerns about the potential for tyranny. Safeguards such as constitutionalism, separation of powers, and the rule of law are designed to prevent the abuse of authority and ensure that the government remains accountable to the people. The famous line reminds us that without such constraints, the state itself can become a source of fear and oppression, undermining the very purpose for which it was created. A prime example of the need for government limits is freedom of speech and expression, which are basic to preventing a nation from exercising absolute authority, by allowing citizens to criticize their government.
In conclusion, the enduring significance of the famous utterance lies in its profound influence on political philosophy. It challenges idealized views of human nature and forces a realistic assessment of the conditions necessary for social order. The debate over the legitimacy of the state, the nature of the social contract, the meaning of justice, and the limits of government power continues to be shaped by the legacy, a legacy that compels political philosophers to grapple with the fundamental tension between liberty and security, individual self-interest and the common good, and the ever-present threat of chaos.
8. Security Imperative
The weight of a specific philosopher’s proclamation pressed heavily on the human psyche: a condition is deemed unbearable in the absence of structured governance. This condition, wherein the “Security Imperative” becomes not merely a preference but an existential necessity, forms the crux of understanding its philosophy. The imperative arises as a direct consequence; it is a response to the perceived chaos and unmitigated self-interest that defines the natural state. Individuals, driven by a primal desire to preserve their own lives, enter into a social contract, ceding certain freedoms in exchange for the protection offered by a sovereign power. This security imperative is not merely a theoretical construct; it is a tangible force shaping societies throughout history. Consider, for instance, the aftermath of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe, a period of devastating conflict and widespread social breakdown. In the wake of this turmoil, the desire for stability and security became paramount, leading to the consolidation of state power and the establishment of new international norms aimed at preventing future conflicts. Therefore, the philosophical reflection and resulting security are inextricably linked, each reinforcing the other in a ceaseless feedback loop.
Further examination reveals a complex interplay between the security imperative and the nature of governance. The philosopher’s proposition often advocates for absolute sovereignty, arguing that only an unquestioned power can effectively maintain order and suppress the inherent tendencies toward conflict. Yet, this solution presents its own challenges; the very power intended to provide security can, if unchecked, become a source of oppression. Throughout history, societies have grappled with this dilemma, seeking to balance the need for strong leadership with the protection of individual liberties. The establishment of constitutional democracies, with their emphasis on separation of powers and the rule of law, represents one attempt to reconcile these competing demands. Real-world examples abound: the American Revolution, fueled by a desire to escape tyrannical rule, sought to establish a government that was both strong enough to provide security and limited enough to protect individual freedoms. The ongoing tension between national security and civil liberties in the wake of terrorist attacks underscores the enduring relevance of this philosophical question.
In conclusion, the Security Imperative, as understood through the lens of the specified philosophical argument, is not a static concept but a dynamic force that shapes the contours of political and social life. The challenge lies in recognizing the inherent trade-offs between security and liberty and in constantly striving to create systems of governance that provide both order and justice. The reflection, though centuries old, continues to resonate, reminding humanity that the pursuit of security must be tempered by a commitment to individual rights and the rule of law, lest the very means of achieving security become a source of oppression. Thus, in the pursuit of safety, the wisdom of ages counsels vigilance against sacrificing the liberties that make life worthwhile.
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding a Well-Known Observation
The sentiment attributed to a prominent 17th-century philosopher continues to provoke inquiry and debate. The following addresses common questions surrounding its interpretation and implications.
Question 1: Is the assertion intended as a literal description of human history?
The proposition isn’t meant to be taken as a historically accurate account of a pre-social past. Rather, it serves as a thought experiment, a device to illustrate the philosophical foundations of governance. The query is more about exploring the potential consequences of humanity as humans without a legal system and rules.
Question 2: Does the philosopher believe all human beings are inherently evil?
The philosopher doesn’t suggest inherent evil, but rather that human nature is characterized by self-interest and a desire for self-preservation. A legal system is required in order to reduce the consequences of self-interested tendencies.
Question 3: Does the assertion imply that democracy is impossible?
The argument could be interpreted as suggesting that only a strong, centralized authority can maintain order. However, interpretations vary. Proponents of limited government can argue for governance and restraints for government power.
Question 4: Is there an alternative interpretation of human motivations other than the ones given in the famous quote?
Yes. Many philosophers and thinkers disagree, positing human nature as inherently cooperative and altruistic. These alternative views often emphasize the importance of social bonds, empathy, and the potential for collective action.
Question 5: In modern day, can we use this famous quote to imply anything?
The expression may offer valuable insight into social and political unrest when institutions are weak. However, the statement could be a pessimistic oversimplification of human behavior.
Question 6: Does the idea expressed apply to international relations as well as domestic politics?
Yes. Some scholars apply this to international relations, saying relations among nations, lack overarching, implying a competitive environment.
The preceding questions and answers highlight the complexities and nuances inherent in interpreting a celebrated, yet often misunderstood, philosophical assertion.
The forthcoming section delves into the contemporary relevance of the expression in modern political discourse.
Lessons from a Famous Phrase
Consider a time, long past, when candlelight flickered across aged manuscripts, illuminating a world on the cusp of profound change. From this era emerged ideas that continue to shape understanding of society, ideas distilled into a phrase, a cautionary observation.
Tip 1: Appreciate the Fragility of Order
History is a relentless teacher, demonstrating repeatedly how quickly societies can descend into chaos when the structures of law and order crumble. The quote reminds to never take stability for granted. Civil societies exist but can only be maintained through diligence.
Tip 2: Recognize the Power of Self-Interest
The observation suggests a tendency to prioritize personal needs above collective well-being. Appreciate that well-designed systems acknowledge this. They channel self-interest toward productive outcomes, creating incentives for cooperation and mutual benefit.
Tip 3: Question Authority
The assertion, while supporting a strong state, does not advocate for blind obedience. Remain vigilant against the abuse of power. Insist on accountability and transparency from those in authority. Defend individual liberties against unwarranted encroachment.
Tip 4: Engage in Civic Discourse
The quote underscores the importance of continuous dialogue about the nature of governance. A well-informed and engaged citizenry is essential for maintaining a healthy society. Promote reasoned debate about the balance between liberty and security.
Tip 5: Understand the Roots of Conflict
Competition for scarce resources, unchecked ambition, and the absence of impartial justice can easily spark conflict. The saying reminds one to address underlying causes of social unrest, not merely suppress its symptoms. Seek to foster cooperation.
Tip 6: Value Compromise and Negotiation
Since it is believed people act with only themselves in mind, acknowledge that societies function through continual negotiation and compromise. The state of nature, if understood correctly, requires a willingness to find common ground. A relentless pursuit of maximal advantage will only lead to chaos.
Tip 7: Cultivate Civic Virtue
Though the quote paints a somber picture of human nature, believe that it is possible to transcend pure self-interest. The belief that people exist only to satisfy themselves is only made a reality if nobody fights it. Value honesty, fairness, and a commitment to the common good.
The philosopher’s reflection offers lessons about the importance of vigilance, critical thinking, and responsible citizenship. Engage with these lessons, not as abstract concepts, but as practical guides for navigating the complexities of the modern world.
This exploration now leads to a final summary, a culmination of the ideas and arguments presented.
Echoes of Leviathan
The investigation began with the specter of a 17th-century philosopher’s stark assessment, an assertion that has haunted political thought for centuries. “Thomas Hobbes famous quote,” while succinct, encapsulates a worldview: a world where the absence of governance plunges humanity into a chaotic struggle, a “war of all against all.” Subsequent explorations delved into the implications of this premise: the necessity of a social contract, the justification for absolute sovereignty, the recognition of human self-interest, the driving force of fear, the Leviathan as a symbol of order, the foundations of political philosophy, and the ever-present security imperative. Each facet illuminated a different aspect of the core argument, highlighting the enduring tension between liberty and security, the individual and the state.
The phrase serves as a call to vigilance. The delicate balance of a civil society rests not on inherent human goodness, but on carefully constructed institutions and a commitment to the rule of law. One must confront those questions with open eyes and clear minds, remembering always the words of the philosopher: that order is not a given, but a prize to be constantly defended against the ever-present threat of chaos.Let those words motivate all persons towards responsible citizenship and a relentless pursuit of a just and ordered world.
