North American Philosophical Publications

The New State of Nature and the New Terrorism

Author(s): Robinson A. Grover
Source: Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 125-141
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441318 .
Accessed: 16/06/2014 00:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Affairs Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Public Affairs Quarterly
Volume16, Number2, April2002

THE NEW STATE OF NATURE AND

THE NEW TERRORISM

RobinsonA. Grover

Thomas Hobbes and the Global State of Nature

paperis aboutterrorism and thenew global stateof nature.The

concept of a primitive stateof natureas a bleak formof anarchyis
usually associated with Thomas Hobbes's writingsfromthemiddleof
the seventeenthcentury.According to Hobbes, all culture and
productionwould be impossiblein this primitivestateand life would
becomea warof all againstall. Today,ouruniversalassumptionis that,
because ofglobalcommunications, production, andtransport,we live in
a high technologyworld totallyremovedfromthe anarchicstate of
natureHobbes described.I believe thatthisis quite wrongand thatwe
are nowcloserto thestateofnaturethanwe havebeen at anytimein the
last fiftyyears.Furthermore, I believe thatthis stateof natureexists
because of, not in spite of, moderntechnology.Hobbes's original
conceptofthestateofnatureis indeedoutofdate.Thisis notsurprising;
he was born in Malmesburyin 1588, and wrotehis political theory
around1650. Even thebest politicaltheoriesage a bit in threehundred
and fiftyyears.However,in a new form,Hobbes's conceptof thestate
of natureis still relevant.Much of the phenomenonof globalization
shouldbe understood globalstateofnature,quitedifferent
as a high-tech,
fromHobbes's seventeenth-century image,butstilla truestateof nature
and one thatis everybit as threatening as theoriginalversion.In this
context, Hobbes's account of human greedand reason,humanfearand
power is crucialto our of
understanding globaltechnology and terrorism.

125

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

I. Hobbes's Primitive State of Nature

Hobbes begins by imagining a society with no sovereign, in which

men live withouta common Power to keep themall in awe. (Leviathan,
chap. 13, par. 8) In modern terms,Hobbes is picturinga society with-
out anycentralizedhegemonic power.If we were naturallysocial animals
without any critical intelligence or sense of self, this would not be a
problem. We would need no central authority,and would be genetically
programmedto preserve our common genes. We would be and would
behave like ants, operating on instinct and sacrificing ourselves un-
thinkinglyfor the sake of the community.Hobbes, breaking with the
Aristoteliantradition,argued that we are not naturallysuited to live in
civil society.Fortunatelyor unfortunately,we are complex creatureswith
strong,selfish passions and also with the ability to reason and to learn
fromexperience. Hobbes calls these selfish passions competition,diffi-
dence, and glory; we call them greed, fear,and pride. His claim is that
reason, in conjunction withexperience, produces prudence,but the emo-
tions drivingus to be prudentare much weaker thanour selfish passions.
Therefore,these passions, operating separately or all together,usually
win out over reason and prudence. Unfortunately, a patternof decisions
based on the selfish passions produces civil war and anarchy,while rea-
son and prudence are necessary for life in a civil society. The result is
thatHobbes's state of natureis always a state of war and anarchy:

In such a conditionthereis no place for industry,because the fruit

thereofis uncertain:and consequentlyno cultureof theearth;no navi-
gation nor use of commodities that may be importedby sea; no
commodiousbuilding; no instruments of movingand removingsuch
thingsas requiremuchforce;no knowledgeof theface of theearth;no
accountof time;no arts;no letters;no society;and, whichis worstof
all, continualfearand thedangerof violentdeath;and the life of man
solitary,poor,nasty,mean,brutish,and short(Leviathan,chap. 13).

Worse, our reasoning ability allows us to look ahead and foresee

possible harmfulconduct by others and thereforegives us additional
motives to act selfishly toward others and so preempt their possible
selfish actions. According to Hobbes, our reasoning ability, coupled
withour selfishpassions, oftenmakes life withouta sovereignless stable,
not more. In modern language, Hobbes is claiming that,in the state of
nature, the world-view of the paranoid is basically correct. Unfortu-
nately,living near an intelligentparanoid and far away fromeffective
police power can be very dangerous.
Hobbes cites German tribesin Tacitus's time ( Elements of Law, chap.
14, sect. 12) and native Americans in his time (De Cive, Liberty,Sect.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NEW TERRORISM 127

13) as examplesof thisstateof nature,even thoughhe admitsthatit

mayneverhave been universalacross theglobe.
Ever since Hobbes's day,threeconditionshavebeen associatedwith
his stateof nature.First,thereis no sovereign.No personand no group
has an effectivemonopolyon power.If therewere a sovereignwith
effectivepower,thatpersonor groupcould set laws and enforcethem,
therebypreventing anyspiraldownintothestateof nature.Second,the
stateof natureimmediately becomes a stateof war,Hobbes's famous
war of all against all:
For Warreconsistsnot in Battell onely,or in the act of fighting;but
in a tractof time, whereinthe Will to contendby Battell is suffi-
cientlyknown(Leviathan, chap. 13).

Wherethereis no commonPower,thereis no Law: whereno Law, no

Injustice. Force and Fraud, are in warre the two Cardinall virtues
(ibid.).

Third,this state of war produces anarchy- no arts,no letters,no society.

However, these threeconditions have differentfunctionsin Hobbes's
argument.The firstis the definingcondition; the meaning of "state of
nature" is "not having an effectivesovereign." Whereas a state of war
notin actuallfighting;butin theknowndispositionthereto,
"consistetti
duringall thetimethereis no assuranceto thecontrary." Hobbesclaims
thisalways happenswhenthereis no effectivesovereign.For Hobbes
the"stateof nature"and "thestateof war"meandifferent things,butin
practicetheyalways occur In
together. philosophical terms,the two
conceptshave differentconnotations but the same denotation.
Finally,
theanarchyfoundin thestateof natureis thecausal resultof thelack
of a sovereignand our emotionalmake-up.Withouta sovereignand
withour selfishpassions manyof us will be inclinedto attackothers.
Giventhisstateof war,cooperationand trustwill be veryhardto sus-
tain.But cooperationand trustare essentialto producingthegoods we
needfora commodiouslife.Hobbes assertsoverand overthatthestate
of naturewill always and everywhere be a stateof war,whichwill in
turncause a stateof primitiveanarchy.
Hobbes goes on to arguethatthis outcomeis utterlyunacceptable
and thatautocracyis preferableto anarchy.If he could use modern
terminology, he wouldsay thatmostpeople are highlyrisk-averse, and
thereforewill choose anyoutcomethatavoids anarchy.
Hobbesproposescreatinga sovereignwhichwillhaveeffective power
to preventanarchy.This sovereigncan be a personsuch as a king,or a
smallgroupsuchas an oligarchy, or a largegroupsuch as a democracy,
butwhateverthemake-upof thesovereign,it musthave absolutepower

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

and authority. Finally,he arguesthatthewayto get an effectivesover-

eign is to make a contractwhichgives thesovereignabsoluteauthority
and powerto maintainthepeace and preventanarchy.Hobbes does not
build civil authorityon habit or custom;nor does he use traditional
naturallaw or rightreason,nor does he invokethe will of god as re-
vealed in holy scriptureor churchtradition.Instead, he argues for
sovereigntybased on the rationalself-interest of individualsand ex-
pressedby tacitcontractual agreements between them.
In Hobbes's defense,he lived throughthe Englishcivil wars, and
was a refugeeforeleven years in France,whichwas havingits own
civil and religiouswarsat thistime.He had good reasonsto detestthe
loss of effectivesovereignty and theresultinganarchy.In thiscentury
we have suffered at leastas muchfromthedespotismof absoluterulers
as fromtheanarchyof thestateof nature.Oftenthetwo seem to meet
each otherin some horribleparodyof government in whichthe des-
potic mis-ruleof some in
President-for-Life some failed stateis both
autocraticand anarchic.Most of us do not believe thatabsolutismis
alwaysto be preferred to anarchy.Nevertheless,thethrustof Hobbes's
argumentis clear and powerful.Even if we do notagree,we mustcon-
siderhis arguments carefully.
At this pointit only remainsto remarkthatour emotionsand our
reasoningabilitieshavenotevolvedsincetheseventeenth century.Shake-
spearestillspeaksto us,andso does Hobbes.Nordoes ourcurrent wealth
and social complexity makeus immunefromgreedand fear.If anything,
newlyacquiredrichesmakethepassionsof greed,fear,and prideworse.
Our worldhas vastlygreatertechnologicalriches,but in the last sixty
yearsit has produced - amongotherthings - theholocaust,mutuallyas-
sureddestruction as a "rational"militarystrategy,and thetragediesof
Bosnia and Rwanda.Unfortunately, theseare onlysome of thepossible
examples.Greed,fear,and prideare alive and well.

II. Our Technological State of Nature

Contrary to all recentexpectations,moderntechnology has createda

new formof the stateof nature.This is because of threeinterlocking
effectsof moderntechnology.This new stateof natureis muchlarger
thanHobbes's seventeenth centuryversion.It is also muchless stable.
It is also trulydecentralized.As a result,largepartsof our societyand
economyhave no effectivesovereign.
The firstproblemis the greatlyincreasedthe size of the stateof
nature.In a primitivesocietywithno sovereign,I have just cause to
fear- whom?Obviously,the people who can harmme. For practical
purposesthismeansmyneighborsfarand near,butonlymyneighbors.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NEW TERRORISM 129

For farmers in Malmesburyin theseventeenth century thismeanteffec-

tively the people in their of
part England. Let us be verygenerous(or
paranoid)and includeall of the BritishIsles and those foreignrulers
whocould invadeEngland,some verypowerfulreligiousfigures,and a
veryfew international bankers.All the restof the world's population
knewnothingofMalmesbury, and could notthreaten peoplelivingthere
if theydid. In modernparlance,theywere beyondthe farmer'sevent
horizon.Correspondingly, thestateof nature,shouldsovereignty break
downin Malmesbury, wouldbe small,and theanarchylocal.
Comparethatsituationwithtoday'sglobal economy.Our decentral-
ized transportation systemmoves people and goods about the entire
globe cheaplyand quickly.One resultis cheaperfood,fuel,and cloth-
ing.Anotherresultis thatcontaminated foodin Europeeffectsmarkets
in theAmericas,Asia, Africaand Australia - thinkof madcow disease.
Anotherresultis thatpeople withinfectiousdiseases can flyfromtheir
homes to anywherein the worldand give the disease to others.They
may not even knowtheyare sick. In both cases, utterstrangersmay
harmus withoutintending to or even knowingthattheyare doingso. In
addition,manyothersnow have the abilityto harmus deliberatelyto
furthertheirown purposes.In its worstmanifestation, globalization
maygive rise to a new formof international bio-terrorism.
Similarlywithcommunications. Atmid-century we wereusedtobeing
able to writea letterto almostanyoneanywherein the world.We can
now talk to anyoneanywherein the worldand see a fairnumberof
themvia video-conferencing. Thatis, we can transmit and receivevery
complex information globally and with greatspeed. The web opens up
a whole new level of contact partlybecause it is so fast and so wide-
spread,butmostlybecause it is interactive. I can call up yoursite and
leave a message,and because textand commandshave similarformats,
I can also orderyourmachineto do thingssuch as give me specific
information fromyourweb site,or even functiondifferently. This new
ability to do something at a distance (send commands) as well as to
learn somethingfroma distantsource (receive information) also car-
rieswithittheabilityto alterthecommandsanddataon othermachines.
I can act at a distancewithouthavingto relyon a humanagent.So I
have the abilityto give orders,buy things,look up obscuredata, add
new data into my systemor yoursand generallyuse the Internetfor
commerce.But I also have the abilityto perpetrate fraud,steal confi-
dentialinformation, and spreadcomputerviruses.
Internationalfinanceis a thirdexample of the mixed uses of this
new technology.Again,it is enormouslyusefulto be able to buy and
sell currenciesand stocksandbondsand derivativesrapidlyworldwide.
Highspeedcommunication coupledwitha sophisticated globalfinancial

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

marketgivespeoplewithcapitalenormousopportunities to makemoney
and/oravoid loss. However,people whoneed to borrowcapitalare now
competingwiththe whole rest of the globe and are oftensubject to
disastrouscapital flight.Moreover,the easy transferof fundsacross
internationalbordersmakes it easy forterrorists to move moneyand
themselvesaroundthe globe. This makesit easier forthemto hide in
countries,to acquireweaponsand explosives,and to meetand
different
plot unobserved.
Thereare manymoreexamplesof thisexplosivegrowth,buttrans-
port,communicationsand finance will do to call attentionto the
problems.The mostobvious of these problemsis the vast increasein
thenumberof people and institutions thatcan effectus forgood or ill.
If myseventeenth centuryEnglishfarmers lived in a littleworldwitha
shortevent-horizon, we live in a huge worldthatincludesmostof the
populationof theearthand has a verylongevent-horizon. And if social
controlshould break down in some serious way, the global state of
naturewould be huge. We would not have a small, nasty,backward
stateofnaturein and aroundMalmesbury. We wouldhavea large,nasty,
technologicalstateof natureeverywhere.
Moreover,theinteractive natureof theworld-wideweb raises a sec-
ond problem.The web greatlyincreases our ability to formloose
interest-basedgroups.The individualsin thesegroupsusuallyreceive
both practicaland psychologicalsupportfromothermembersof the
group.Unfortunately, some of thesegroupshave malevolentpurposes.
Hobbes arguedthatin the state of natureeven the strongestindi-
vidualshave reasonto fearothers:
For as to the strength enoughto kill
of body,the weakesthas strength
the strongest,eitherby secret machinationor by confederacywith
othersthatare in the same dangeras himself(Leviathan,chap. 13).

The Internetnow providesa new meetingplace forpeople to form

confederacies.Usually thesegroupsare benign,such as chess players,
genealogists,sportstriviafans,or even philosophers.But the net can
and does serveas a meetingplace of a sortforpedophiles,and bomb-
makers,and violent racists and homo-phobes.Alone, most of these
individualswouldprobablyremainunsavorybutisolatedand incapable
ofaction.Emboldened,ifnotempowered, bymeetingotherlike-minded
individualsin chatrooms,theybecomemoreconfirmed in theirbeliefs
and more likelyto act. In short,the Internetmakes it easier to find
like-mindedindividuals,and such individuals,havingformedgroups,
are morelikelyto act. This probablymakeseffectiveconspiraciesmore
frequent;it certainlyincreasesthefearof such conspiraciesin thetar-
geted groups.Thus the veryexistenceof these hate web-sitesmakes

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NEW TERRORISM 13 1

potentialvictimsand theirfriendsand parentsunderstandably fearful.

This perfectly justified,rationalfear mayprovoke violent counter mea-
suresto forestallattacks. This creates a downward spiral angerand
of
conspiracyon one side withfearand pre-emptive strikes on the other
side. It is a slipperyslope leadingto thestateof war and anarchy.
The thirdaspectof thisnew technologyis thatit is structurally de-
centralized.The Internetis thebest,butcertainlynottheonlyexample
of this.As long as computersare relativelycheap and can talkto each
other- exchangeinformation and commands - anyonecan buy a com-
puterandjoin. The onlycentralauthority on theweb confinesitselfto
overseeingweb addressesand domainnames.Thereis no centralcon-
trollingauthority to decide who getson theInternetand whattheycan
do once on there.In Hobbesianterms,theInternet has no sovereign.So
farthishas been a benefit.Indeed,it is hardto imaginehowtheInternet
as we knowit could have a sovereign.Most people attribute thegrowth
and usefulnessof the Internet to the fact thatit is radicallydecentral-
ized. However,thelack ofa centralizedcontrolling authority has allowed
greedyindividualsto commitfraud,violentindividualsto plan vio-
lence,andpsychoticindividualsto stalkvictims.Of course,somepeople
do all of these thingswithouttouchinga computer,but the computer
and theInternet allow themto act withspeed and anonymity. And,ano-
nymity empowersevil.
What is even more interestingis the phenomenonof hackersand
viruses.Some hackingand some virusesmaybe theproductof greedor
fear:theresultof thetemptation to get intoa lightlysecuredplace and
steal somethingof value, or theresultof fearthatothersmaydo some-
thinginjuriousand theresolveto strikepreemptively at theircomputer.
However,mosthackersand creators of viruses do it out of pride.I am
smarter thanyou,and to proveit I will defeatyoursecuritysystemand
leave a messagebehind.Betteryet,I will createa virusthatwill de-
stroythedata on hundredsof thousandsofcomputers, thusprovingthat
I- the"heroic"lone individual - am smarter thatall therestof youand
yourcorporations.This is exactlywhatHobbes meantwhenhe wrote
aboutgloryas one ofthethreeprincipalicauses ofquarrell.Glorymakes
people fightfor trifles,as a word,a smile,a different opinion,or any
othersignsofundervalue,A generationearlierin his Discourse on War
Sir WalterRaleighwrotein a similarwayaboutpridebeingthebasis of
arbitrary and unnecessarywars. Raleighthoughtthatthissortof pride
was commonto princesand aristocratsand was a majorcause of duels
and wars. So todayour self-designated intellectualelite, motivatedby
pride,choose combatby computer.We have a new phenomenon - com-
putercombatby duelingnerds.Unhappily, innocentcomputeruserscan
be badlydamagedby theseviralwars.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
13 2 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

The global financialsystemuses its own communication systemsas

well as the Internet,and it too is highlydecentralized.The finance
ministers ofthemajorcountrieshavehugeresources,buttheyare vastly
out-numbered and out-weighted by the individualand corporatetrad-
ers,and thesetradersoperateopenlyon egoisticprinciples.Theyare all
in it forprofit.Thereare fewif anycontrolson who participatesin the
market.A numberof individualsand companieshave thefinancialre-
sources of small and not so small countries.The result is a close
approximation of Hobbes's stateof nature.Perhapstheonlydifference
is thatsome of thesetradersare individualswithfewresourceswhile
othersare hugemulti-national companies.The difference is
in strength
muchgreaterthanit is betweenindividualhumans.But even so, the
differences in strength are notso greatthatany of thesetradersis im-
muneto harmfromthe global financialmarket.All membersof the
systemhave desires and fears.All hope forgain. All fearloss. Most
havelargeegos as well. Again,we have a situationof egoisticindividu-
als operatingin a worldwithno centralizedauthority, and motivatedby
greed,fear,and pride.We have a financialstateof nature.
Modernbiologyprovidesa different, interestingexample.Different
because geneticresearchis notessentiallylinkedto theInternet theway
e-commerceand e-communication are. Interestingbecause we can see
thesame play of passionshereas in theInternet.
Bio-technology and DNA researchare provingto be relativelyinex-
pensive develop and potentiallyveryrewarding.In thistheydiffer
to
fromotherareas of scienceand technology. Anyonewhowantsto build
a ballisticmissile withan atomicwarheadneeds the engineeringand
technologicalresourcesofa good sized country. New drugsusuallyneed
the resourcesof a large pharmaceuticalcompany.However,genetic
modification takesa fewPh.D.'s, a fewassistants,and a medium-sized
lab. The technologyis relativelyinexpensiveand unobtrusive. There-
fore,it can be done by manyand done secretly.And, of course the
resultsmaybe tremendous. The discoveryof therightgeneticmodifi-
cation, if it can be patentedand the patentenforced,will make some
individualsand companiesrich. Failure to have the righttechnology
mayleave somecountriesopento biologicalblackmail.In addition,the
discovererof crucialgeneticmodifications will become veryfamous.
It is provingimpossibleto controlwho is doingresearchin thisarea
or whatresearchtheyare doing. Considercloning,whichis onlyone
smallpartof DNA research.My guess is thatnobodyreadingthispaper
thinksthatreproductivecloningof a humanbeing is desirable,but I
wouldalso hazardthata livinghumanclone will be createdin thenext
fewyears.The rewardsof fameand fortunewill makethisprojectirre-
sistibleto someresearcher. The desiretoreplicateone's self,ortoreplace

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NEW TERRORISM 13 3

a lost child, will make this projectirresistibleto some multi-million-

aire. The lack of effectivecentralizedcontrolwill allow it to be done.
Technologicalabilityplus strongmotivation plus lack of strongcentral
controlwill overridesocietal disapproval.Again we are livingon the
edge of a scientificstateof nature.
Most of us are risk-averse,as Hobbes pointedout 350 years ago.
Moderntechnologyprovidesus withtheopportunity to do manythings
thatwereimpossibleor verydifficult only a few yearsago. But oppor-
tunityto do is also riskto be done to. Perhaps that is whythelast few
yearshave seemed so unexpectedlyunpleasantto mostof us. Despite
theend of the cold war,the worldseems to be a threatening place. In
fact,manyof us are reactingto all thisnew technologywithapprehen-
sionratherthanenthusiasm. Thisis notjust because itis newandrapidly
changing, but because it appearsto be creatingan unstableand uncon-
trollablestate of nature.

III. High-tech Terrorism

Our conceptof terrorism exactlymirrors thedistinction betweenthe

low-techand thehigh-techformsof thestateof nature.In theformof
robbery, extortion, kidnapping, assassination,andguerrillawarfare, low-
techterrorism has beenwith us forcenturies.In the form of ideologically
motivatedattacksby an individualor small groupit has been withus
formostof thenineteenth and twentieth centuries.In theWestwe seem
to have thoughtof terrorism as a formof low-intensity warendemicto
backwardareas, and acceptedit as partof thecost of doingbusinessin
thoseareas. If we thinkof terrorism thisway,we get a conceptof ter-
rorismthatis verysimilar to Hobbes's originalconceptof the stateof
nature.Terrorismis seen as a phenomenonof backwardareas where
civil controlis weak or entirelyabsent.It is seen as motivatedby indi-
vidualgreed,fear,and pride.Terrorists are thoughtof as individualsor
small groupssharinga similarideologyor background.In all thisthey
are morelike an in-bredfamilythana civil societyTheyare assumedto
be incapable of organizingthemselvesinto large groupsoperatingon
bureaucraticprinciples.In short,we imaginethemas thefinalproduct
of life in Hobbes's stateof nature.
This conceptof terrorism does notexplain thekindof organization
thatkilled morethanthreethousandpeople on September11.
This new terrorism is a global,high-techterrorism. It is an extreme
exampleof theglobal,high-tech stateof nature I have been discussing.
It is global in two senses: first,because it operatesin countriesaround
theglobe,second,becauseitusestheadvancedtechnologies oftheglobal

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

economyto carryout its plans. Sometimesthis use is direct,such as

plottingvia the Internetor transferring cash via the global banking
system. Sometimes the use is opportunistic: attackingairlinersbecause
they are hard to defend and verydeadly when used as flyingbombs.
This does notmeanthateverything global terroristsdo is alwaystech-
nologicallysophisticated. Box cuttersarenothightech,butunfortunately
theycan be effective.
High-techterrorists are no longerisolated and locally based; they
can and do cooperateglobally withothergroupshavingdifferent but
equally extremeideologies. What is more importantis that this new
formof terrorism uses resourcesfromone partof the globe to act in
otherparts,and it can do thisthanksto theglobal high-techeconomy.
Thereis an obviousironyhere.This newterrorism seeks to destroythe
global economy in all its forms, butit can hope do so onlyby operating
through theglobaleconomy.Anyoneschooledin Marxistthought would
see thissituationas a perfectexampleof an institution suffering from
an intenseself-contradiction, althoughit is not clear whether is the
it
global terroristsor the global economythatis self-contradictory. Per-
haps, froma classic Marxistperspective,theybothare. However,the
mainpointis clear; thereis a new formof terrorism abroadand partof
whatmakesit newis its relianceon moderntechnologyin communica-
tions,transportation, and finance.
One possible objectionto treatinghigh-techterrorism as a Hobbes-
ian state of natureis thatmost terroristsseem to be motivatedby
religiousor ethnichatredsthatdo not fitinto Hobbes's "greed-fear-
pride" accountof humanmotivation.PerhapsHobbes's term"glory"
and myrendering of it as "pride"is too restrictive.WhatHobbes seems
to have had in mindis a set of emotionsthatwe now thinkof as "self-
esteem."Harmto our self-esteemcan be verydamaging,and produce
eitherangeror depression.Since mostof us internalizeaspectsof our
cultureand society,especially aspects of our religionand our ethnic
identity,any attackthatdevalues these aspects of our culture - even
inadvertent attacks- are goingto be feltas attackson our self-esteem,
and will produceeitherangeror depression.The terrorists' ethnicand
religiousanger seems to be the productofjust such perceivedattack.
a
Afterall, mostterrorists seem to come fromthe partsof theirsociety
thatare mostaffectedby westerninfluences,not the mostbackward,
ruralparts.Theyreceivethedirecteffectof advancedwesternculture,
theyfeeldiminishedin some way,theyrespondby gettingangry.Oth-
ers respondwithdepression.
Thinkingof terrorist's motivationas an attemptto preserveor bol-
stertheirselfesteemrather thanjustassertingtheirprideanswersanother
objectionas well. Hobbes is famousforbuildinghis politicaltheory

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NEW TERRORISM 13 5

aroundthefearof death.He claims we all feardeath,and, finally,it is

thisfearofdeaththatcauses us to contractwitheach otherto createand
maintainthecivil society.Obviouslythesuicidal terrorist is notafraid
of death,or,at theveryleast,thefearof deathmotivates him less than
thegloryof his sacrifice.The cultof martyrdom becomesmorepower-
ful thanthefearof death.This makesno sense if we thinkof suicidal
terroristsin termsofHobbes's egoisticindividuals;itmakesbettersense
if we thinkof themas individualstryingto preservetheirself esteem
and sense of worthin a societythatis threatened withchange,is very
afraidofchance,andvaluesthechangelesssocietyabove theindividual.
A terrorist's suicidecan makesense if we adopta post-Hobbesianpsy-
chology in which physicaldeathis less frightening to theterrorist than
societalchangeor personaldishonor.
On September11 thisnew terrorism provedthatit can be frighten-
ingly effectiveand in a peculiarlyfrightening way.Therewas vast loss
of life and vast economicdamage. addition,the terrorists
In used air-
linersflyingfromUS airportsto achievetheirends.Theyused thestuff
of "our" global economyto attackus at home.Monthslaterthisshock
still lingers.In this one aspect we are like the terrorists:we identify
in
ourselves, part, with our cultureand when thatcultureis shown to be
vulnerableand also used to attackus, we suffera loss of selfesteemand
reactby becomingangryor depressed.
It is noteasy to see how we can combatthishigh-tech,high-moti-
vatedterrorism. Goingbackto a simpler,low-techworldis nota realistic
option. The answer to dangerouslybad technologyis not low technol-
ogy, but better,safer technology.Nevertheless,it is hardto see what
thatbetter, safer technologycan be. Probablyit will be made up of
manydifferent, small elementsratherthansome single,big develop-
ment.We can not give up mass air transport.We can not give up
electroniccommunications or the global bankingsystem.To combat
thisnewterrorism we will have to putchecksand controlsand identifi-
cationmarkersintomuchof ourglobal communications, transportation,
and financialnetwork.Possiblytransponders withID's on vehiclesand
shippingcontainers.Possiblya national(voluntary?)identity card.Pos-
the
siblycomplexprotocolson all e-mailmessagesto identify original
senderand sender'slocation.
But thesecontrolswill damage the speed and flexibilityof theglo-
bal economy.They may also pose threatsto our privacyand our civil
liberties.The trade-off is betweenthecost and dangerof continuingto
runourcurrent low-cost,high-risk technology andswitching to a higher,
moreexpensivetechnologywitha lowerriskfactor.BeforeSeptember
11 sucha switchseemedundesirable,nowit seemsnecessary.But even
at best, the new technologicaland social solutionswill come slowly.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

They will have to be fittedinto our existingtechnologyand society

carefully.Whatwill workwell in one area will be dangerousor costly
in another.Therewill be no cost-free,simplesolutions.Therewill be
no universalsolutions.
Moreover,we mustrememberthatterrorism is not the only prob-
lem. The global stateof naturemakespossiblea newand nastyformof
terrorism,but is also makespossible othernon-terrorist disasterssuch
as therecentoutbreakof hoofand mouthdisease in England.Thereis
no evidencethatthisoutbreakwas caused by any maliciousintent;it
was just a productof new transportation technology,old regulations,
and bad luck. However,its effectswere just as bad as any terrorist
could hope for.Modernterrorism, therefore,shouldbe seen as one of
theworstresultsof thenew high-techstateof nature.It is a resultthat
we mustlearnto controland minimize,butglobal terrorism is onlyone
of aspectof a largerproblem,and we will have to develop social, po-
litical,and legal strategiesto deal withall theseaspects of the global
stateof nature.

IV. Hobbes's Unacceptable Answer

Whatconclusionsshouldwe drawaboutthisglobal stateof nature?
Well,whatconclusionsdidHobbesdrawabouthisstateofnature?Hobbes
believed thathumanbeings could not toleratethe uncertainty of the
state of nature,and the one alternativeto the state of naturewas a
societyruledby an absolutesovereign.Therecan onlybe anarchy(in
thestateof nature)or an absolute,authoritative and authoritariansov-
ereign (in a civil There
society.) can be nothing in between. Therefore,
he concludedthatwe mustchoose thatalternative and acceptautocracy.
Essentially Hobbes gives two arguments for his position,one logi-
cal, one practical. The logical argument is that in any society there
mustbe a singlehighestsource of authority, otherwisetherecould be
no settledlaws and no stablesociety.By definition, thesovereignis the
highest,ultimateauthority. if we proclaimsomeoneor some
Therefore,
groupas thesovereignand thensomeoneelse in oursocietystopsthem
fromdoing somethingtheyreally want to do, we have clearly mis-
identified thesovereign.Anyonewhocan be prevented fromdoingwhat
theyreallywantto do is notall powerfulandtherefore notthesovereign.
Hobbes's practicalargument mergesneatlywithhis logical one. He
arguesthatno essentialpartof sovereignpowercan be alienatedby the
sovereignwithoutthe eventualloss of all othersovereignpowers.In
orderto protectthe people, the sovereignmustretaincontrolof the
judicature.That necessitatescontrolof the militia.And thatnecessi-
tatescontroloftaxation,etc.(Leviathan,chap. 18). Hobbeshad observed

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NEW TERRORISM 137

the steps leadingto the breakdownof royal authorityin Englandand

Francein his time.He saw themas a causal series (or slipperyslope)
which,once begun,could onlylead to the completebreakdownof the
stateand finallyanarchy.
Therefore, Hobbes's basic positionis thatsovereignty is indivisible
and mustbe absoluteas a logical and as a practicalmatter.He does tem-
perhispictureoftheabsolutesovereignwithadmonitions tothesovereign
to followcustomand refrain frominterferingin individuallives as much
as possible.However,thesecommentsare precatoryonly.If the sover-
eignbehavesbadly,butstillkeepscontrol,he is stillthesovereign.
Obviously,thiswill notdo forus. The historyof thetwentieth cen-
has
tury taught us that a trulyevil sovereignis everybit as bad as any
anarchy. We have no stomach for any unitaryglobal order that is cen-
tralizedand coercive,especiallyifthesovereignis, as it is forHobbes,
above thelaw.

V. On Beyond Hobbes
If we take the dual threatsof anarchyand autocracyseriously,we
mustfindsome middlegroundthatwill give us a powerfulbutlimited
sovereignty. We need a politicalsystemin whichthe sovereignwill be
effectiveand non-threatening. Much of westernpoliticaltheorysince
Hobbes has been an attemptto articulatejust such a system.A fulldis-
cussionof theattempts to do thiswouldbe a multi-volume summary of
liberalpoliticalphilosophyfromtheseventeenth centuryto thepresent.
Therehave been threemainstrandsin thisremedialdiscourse.The
firstand best knownis to limitthe sovereignby invokinga natural
rightwhich all individualswill accept and which will serve as the
basis forpoliticalcohesion.Anotheris to turnto non-politicalforces,
such as markets,to induce voluntary,self-interested cooperation.A
thirdis to turnto moralvirtuessuch as trustor benevolenceor toler-
ance as thebasis of civil cooperation.All threehave obvious strengths
and weaknesses.
The usual naturalrightstactichas been to imaginea tacitcontractin
whichall inhabitants of an area turnovertheirrightsto some sovereign
in exchangeforsecurityand protection.This is exactlywhatHobbes
himselfdoes, as does Locke, as do manyothers.However,the natural
righttheoristqualifiesthisargument by claimingthatpriorto thecon-
tractthereexistcertainnaturalrights, suchas therightto lifeorproperty,
thatmaynotbe givenup underany circumstances.In particular,they
can notbe alienatedby contract.Therefore,contractsthatinvolvethe
sovereign'sunrestricted takingof a naturalright,such as life or prop-
erty,are invalidor are notcontracts.Hobbes himselfuses thistacticto

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

guaranteeour unrestricted rightto attemptto preserveour life. Locke

uses it to allow us to preserveourproperty. The UnitedNationsCharter
uses thisapproachin its assertionof UniversalHumanRights.
The naturalrightsargument has greatpopularappeal, partlybecause
of its simplicity, and partlybecause it invokesconceptslike rightand
dutythatare familiarfromour experiencewiththe legal system.In
spiteof this,it has greatweaknessestoo. First,thereis theproblemof
gettingagreementon whatrightsare reallynaturalrights.Gettingal-
mostuniversalacceptanceon the rightto life is easy, untilwe get to
discussingfetuses.Tolerationforotherpeople's way of lifealso seems
like a non-controversial idea, untilwe get to pedophilesor sadists.On
closerinspectioneverypurported naturalrighthas hardcases in which
it conflictswithother,equally important naturalrights.
Second, the legalisticlanguage of natural rights,withits emphasis
on rightsand dutiestendsto cast all arguments intoadversarialpatterns
whichmakecompromisedifficult.The zealot who insistson everybit
of everyone of his rights,and therebydestroysall possibilityof a
reasonablecompromiseis a stockfigureof politicalanecdotes.
Finally,thereis theproblemofenforcement. Naturalrightsin theory
are pre-legal.That is, theyexist priorto theconstitution and thelaws
of a state.Theymust,because theyare supposedto be thebasis forthe
constitution and thelaws. But,priorto theexistenceof thestate,there
is no enforcement mechanismotherthanindividualconscience.To be
effectively enforced,naturalrightsmustbe incorporated intothelegal
system. This is hard to do, especially if these essentialnatural rights
have to be enforcedagainstthe sovereignauthority thatdominatesthe
legal system.How do you enforcea naturalrightto equalityin a coun-
trywhoselegal systemis based on class or racial or sexual inequality?
How do you enforceindividualrightsin a legal systemthatis founded
on theprimacyof thecommunity?
These problemshave promptedmanypeople to attemptto finda
drivingforcethatwill induce people to act cooperativelywithoutin-
vokingany supposednaturalrights.
Of themanyattempts, themostinteresting is theidea of marketcapi-
talismwhichsuggestsa non-coercive mechanismthatactuallyrelieson
egocentricbehaviorto benefitsocietyas a whole. We do not have to
discovera new set of naturallaws or naturalrights,we do nothave to
hope fora less egotisticpersonality type,nordo we have to imaginean
original contract. All we have to do is establishan openmarketandkeep
transaction costs down.The marketwill makeeach individual'sgreed
serveas a checkon thegreedofothers.The mostefficient producerswill
tendto succeedand themarketwill stabilizearoundthem.A social order
will be formedthatis neitheranarchynordespotism.It will be unequal,

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NEW TERRORISM 139

perhapssavagelyso, butit will have a coherentstructure withoutbeing

based on thewill of an absolute,coercivesovereign.
However,marketmechanismsthemselveshave theirown problems.
Theydo notseem to workin all circumstances. Sometimespeople act
againstselfinterest anddo genuinely ordestructive
altruistic acts.Market
theoristshave traditionally ignoredaltruisticacts as irrationalaberra-
tionsand justifiedthisby notingthatmostpeople mostof thetimedo
act in a selfinterested manner.However,a secondlook at altruisticacts
shows thatthereare a huge numbersof them,such as caringforour
childrenand aged relativesor givingto charities.In reality,thesealtru-
isticacts constitute a largefractionof society'seconomicactivity.This
has caused some contemporary economistsand psychologiststo make
carefulstudiesof economic or psychologicalbehaviorthatdoes not
seem to be consistentwithself-interest. Some authorsthenadopt the
of
strategy arguing that a broader explanatoryframework will demon-
is
stratethatthere actually a consistent
patternof selfinterested behavior
in these cases. Otherwritersadopt the oppositestrategyand accept a
largersphereforirrationalconductin our lives. In bothcases thisnew
approachseems to accept the idea thatmanyof our acts are not nar-
rowlyrationaland self-interested.
Interestingly, Hobbes knew about this type of argumentand an-
sweredit 350 yearsago. He notedthateven in a stateof naturethere
could be small groupsthatlived and workedtogether, specificallythe
government ofsmallFamilies,theconcordwhereof dependent on natural
lust. {Leviathan,chap. 13) In effect,he arguedthatthesegroupswere
insignificantbecause theycould neverbecome large enoughto form
propergovernments.
A second, serious challenge to markettheorycomes fromgame
theoryand problemslike theprisoner'sdilemma,whichsuggeststhat,
contraryto the ideals of the markettheorist,actingconsistentlyfrom
egoistic motiveswill oftenfail to producea stable or predictableout-
come. In general,KennethArrowin IndividualValueand Social Choice
has shown thatno one decision procedurewill producecoherentre-
sults in all situations.
Actually,we have a fascinatingdialectic in progresshere. Hobbes
gives us egoismand thechoicebetweendespotismand anarchy.Market
economicsoffersus a thirdchoice thatproposesa market-ordered, non-
of
coercivelysociety egoists.Simplegametheory shows thatall decision
procedures,includingthose of the market,will break down in some
circumstances.Recentcomprehensiveanalysis of prisoner'sdilemma
scenariosseemto showthattheprisoner'sdilemmarepeatedmanytimes
will producerelativelystable,effective strategies.Deep in gametheory,
thereis morecoherencethanwas previouslythought.Buteventhemost

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
140 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

optimisticreadingsofiteratedprisoner'sdilemmascenariosleads to the
conclusionthatno strategy winsin all circumstances.
The thirdstrategyto avoid Hobbes's anarchyor autocracyanalysis
is to turnto virtueslike benevolenceor trust.The moralsense theorists
did preciselythatin the eighteenth century.(Remember:Adam Smith
wrotean ethicstreatise,Moral Sense, beforehe wroteThe Wealthof
Nations.)In thenineteenth centuryMill's On Libertypreachestheneed
forrestraintand the tolerationof different opinions.The interesting
point is thathe did not argue forlaws againstthetyranny of themajor-
ity,but ratherforpersonalrestraint by the individualmembersof the
majority.He did not followthe model of the US Constitution, which
seeks to avoid the majority'styranny provisionsfor
by constitutional
theseparationof powersand forchecksand balances. Instead,he calls
for individualsto cultivatethe virtueof tolerance.In contemporary
politicalthoughtwe have FrancisFukuyamawritingTrust,and in gen-
eral, a series of politicalcommentators arguingthatin orderto have a
democraticsociety,especiallyraciallyor culturallydiversedemocratic
polity,we mustfirsthave numerousmechanisms,whichtheyoftencall
"social capital", thatwill producea broad basis of trust.The events
between 1990 and 2000 in Serbia and Bosnia show whatcan happen
whenthereis no trustand no tolerance.These same Balkaneventsshow
us how difficultit is to avoid anarchyor autocracyby appeal to indi-
vidual virtuesalone.
Therefore, it seemsthattheoriginaldilemmaremains.Ournewtech-
nologyis forcingus towarda new versionof Hobbes's stateof nature.
Even if we live in a hightechnologyworld,it is stilla dangerousthing
to be in a stateof nature,because it pushesus towardanarchyor toward
some sortof absoluteautocracy.We can notlive withanarchy.We can
notlive withautocracy.Noneofthestrategies thatseekto avoidthispair
of dismalalternatives can guaranteeeffectiveness overthelongrun.

VI. Concluding Pessimistic Postscript

So what stance should we take towardthe possibilityof a global
Hobbesian state of nature?Should we all startstock-pilingfood and
ammunition againstthe once and futurestateof nature?No, I do not
reallythinkwe should.For one thing,thecominganarchy,ifit is really
coming,will notbe defeatedbysuchsimple,short-term solutions.How-
ever,I do thinkthatthereis a real threatout therebetweenourdesires
"forgain orfor glory"(De Cive, chap. 1) and our newtechnology.
The threatwill come in theformof increasinginstabilityand uncer-
in
tainty communications, finance and science.One immediateeffectwill
be highertransactioncosts to deal withthe instability
and uncertainty.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE NEW TERRORISM 14 1

The devastatingeffectsof infectiousanimal diseases on farmingand

food distribution is a perfectexampleof thiskindof trouble.Another
effectwill be a loss of confidencein manyof our institutions, withall
theanxietyanddepressionand angerthatthispsychologicaluncertainty
entails.Recentinstabilitiesin theworld'smajorfinancialsystemsseem
to be problemsof thissort.The resultwill probablybe some degreeof
local stabilityand trustwheneverinstitutions can be observedand held
accountable,coupled withenormous instabilityand mistrust whenever
institutionsget too big or too powerfulto be observedand controlled.
For example,local travel,shopping,and recreationhas been relatively
unaffectedby the September11thattack,but international travelhas
been severelydisruptedall across the globe. Unfortunately, the anar-
chisminherentin theglobal stateof naturewill workits way down to
thelocal level in unpredictable ways. Considerthedifferent effectsof
hoofand mouthdisease and madcow disease. Sometimestheanarchyat
theglobal level resultsin severedisruptionsin a particulararea, as in
theeffectsof hoofand mouthdisease in England.Sometimestheeffect
is spottedacrossthewholeglobe,as in theeffectsof mad cow disease.
Being preparedfortheglobal stateof naturewill have to startwith
an understanding of the problemand with a flexible imaginationto
considerunlikelymechanismsthatwill mitigatethe individualeffects
of high-techanarchy.
In thetwentieth centurywe have seen amazinghumanprogressand
terribleevil. At the veryend of thecenturya non-confrontational glo-
bal societyseemed- briefly - to be possible.Perhapsit stillis possible,
but,at the beginningof the twenty-first century, it seems morelikely
thatwe will see insteada new formof Hobbes's stateof nature.The
worldwide technologyof moderncommunications, transportation,fi-
nance, and science has producedwonderfulbenefits,but it has also
openedthewayfora global stateof natureand global terrorism. Tragi-
cally, these great global beasts are, even now, slouching toward
Malmesburyto be born.1
ofConnecticut
University

NOTES

1. An earlier,shorterversionof thispaperwas deliveredat the 19thWorld

Conferenceof the International Society for Philosophyof Law and Social
Philosophy,held at Pace University in New York in Juneof 1999. It is to be
publishedas theARSP - Beihefte82, Hrsg.MichelTroperand AnnalisaVersa,
Franz SteinerVerlag,Stuttgart,2002.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:35:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions