(state of nature, consent to government, autonomy)

Ive been studying the incredibly interesting subject of social and political philosophy. I'm not really sure where i stand on most of this issues but heres a bit of background on my personal thoughts. I disagree with anyone having authority other another based on the premise that we are all created equal. I understand that without police, government, society, life would be chaotic and perhaps as hobbes said "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." I tend to side with principle of utilitarianism and so regardless of the consequences i still am not sure if i believe that government or police have legitimate authority over anyone.



So in the state of nature humans are equal in that they all have ultimate freedom and are free to either cooperate (share property, not interfere with others etc) or compete (take others property, use violence as necessary) basically survival of the fittest with the fittest being he who has the most power or forms alliances to gain power. Hobbes and Locke disagreed on whether humans are naturally good or evil. I believe thats irrelevant and that before societal conditioning there was no good or evil.

Then individuals supposedly consent to government, they give up their freedoms under the understanding that if everyone agrees to cooperate their will no longer be fear of violence, theft, etc from others. (as a side note, david hume would argue this is a myth and no individual has ever actually consented)

So, hypothetically:

If an individual today revoked that consent he regains the ultimate freedom he had in the state of nature.
however, he could no longer rely on services such as currency, police protection, health care. he would be autonomous but would have to find a way of defending himself from other individuals and groups (military, police)
obviously for the sake of utility it would be foolish to do so, but in principle it is possible.


As a sicilian canadian, i find the mafia very fascinating and i think it even provides an interesting opportunity to look at these ideas in a modern context. Basically the mafioso is a natural person in that they operate outside of the law of our society but under the law of their group or 'sub-society'. They are accountable to the law only in that it is a hindrance to come into conflict with such a powerful group (the government). They don't rely on the police for protection as it is against the omerta to report a crime to the authorities, they don't rely on our societies concept of justice as a mafioso accused of a crime would not even offer a defense but silently go to jail even if they didn't commit the offense. A mafioso in jail is more like a Prisoner of War then a citizen paying a debt to society.


Any input would really be appreciated and would help figure out my stance on these issues

thanks,
mpapania20