Thomas Jefferson, in analyzing different forms of society, proclaimed, “whether no law… or too much law… submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last†(Matthews 63). It would seem, despite his grouping with people like Madison and Hamilton as a founding father, Jefferson stands in opposition to the market society advocated by others, instead contending that an egalitarian, limited government society – if any government – is the best option. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson stands as one of the few Western philosophers to truly preach that all mankind is created equal and with an innate ability to govern themselves. It is this view on the nature of man that formulates Jefferson’s basic political theory and allows him to stand on the side of anarchism and in opposition to the tyranny of capitalism and big government.

Thomas Jefferson’s discussion of the nature of man begins with a few important precepts. Firstly, Jefferson contends that [wo]man is largely a creature of his or her environment, explaining that many differences – sometimes called deficiencies – found in some groups of people are not a fault of the being, but of the environment. Specifically, in Jefferson’s criticism of Count de Buffon’s observations of the New World, he answers the claim Buffon makes about the American Indian being inferior in the way they hold relationships, terminating in a lower birthrate that Buffon says proves the New World inferior. Jefferson, on the other hand, refutes the claim by explaining the circumstances surrounding Native American society, where women join the men in battle and therefore find themselves less able to carry children on a regular basis. This lower birthrate, according to Jefferson, has nothing to do with the nature of the Indians, but rather of the environment they live in where it is necessary for them to do what they do. Jefferson’s second precept, and one of the most important and unique, is his belief in an innate moral sense that all people possess. It is this moral sense, centered in the “heartâ€Â, which Jefferson uses as a basis for much of his theory on society and government. Stemming from this second precept, the third goes on to contend that the moral sense, which all people possess, is what makes all people equal. The moral sense is not reliant upon intellect or strength and therefore can create equality no matter the physical or mental capacities of a person.

Fourthly, in his examinations of human society, Jefferson also postulates that all people are naturally sociable and wishes to interact with others. More deeply into this analysis, Jefferson furthers his precept by explaining, “Man was created for social intercourse; but social intercourse cannot be maintained without a sense of justice; then man must have been created with a sense of justice.†(Matthews 62) Therefore, along with this precept of man being naturally sociable, Jefferson also believes that man has an innate sense of justice. While Jefferson does contend that man has a few innate abilities as explained above, he also goes on to stand in opposition to other thinkers of the time, namely John Adams, when he explains that the nature of man evolves, just as all things evolve. He explains this stance in a letter to William Ludlow, asking any man to examine the evolution of people as they travel from the Rocky Mountains onward to the East Coast. He contends that the nearer one gets to the seaboard, the more evolution in human intellect you find. The final postulate set forth by Thomas Jefferson is the idea that human evolution, both in their nature and in their intellect, can lead to human progress and perfectibility. This postulate is likewise supported in Jefferson’s letter to Ludlow. It is with these postulates in mind that Jefferson sets forth on a journey of empirical observation and theoretical conclusion towards anarchy.

The main way Jefferson examines human nature and specifically human interaction with society is through the American Indian. Although Jefferson sets out to study the original Americans for many reasons, including defense of the New World, his final conclusions seem to hint very neatly at Jefferson’s dismay with government and desire for social anarchy. In his studies of the American Indian, Jefferson distinguishes between three types of societies in order to clarify his overall position. The first type of society, of which exists in most monarchies and even the majority of republics in the world during Jefferson’s time, is a society with a coercive and forceful government. The second society, of which he gives the example of England to a slight degree, is one in which a government exists which has the will of everyone invested into it. The third and final society, of which the Native American societies are included into, is a society without government. (Matthews 63) Throughout his studies of the American Indian, Jefferson consistently sets himself on the side of admiring the “savages†for their ability to live by moral sense only, and not by the coerciveness of law and government. Furthermore, Jefferson discusses the creation of artificial separation in government-led societies, namely a class system that causes hatred, fear and all around despair. In opposition to this, the anarchism of Indian societies do not possess any artificial separation and thus their societies are relatively free of hatred, fear and despair. This egalitarianism of Native American society is most certainly an admirable trait, but it is necessary to understand that Jefferson’s observations of anarchism by Native Americans does not equate to the individualistic anarchy of theories like Proudhon or does it even insist on individualistic humans like the psychology of man offered by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. All three of these theorists, namely Hobbes and Locke, put the nature of man firmly in a selfish realm. (Matthews 64) Hobbes explains these individuals as people who would do anything to get what they want. Locke is a bit nicer, saying that individuals will follow a natural law and respect natural rights out of a selfish desire to have others conduct themselves in a similar manner. Rousseau even finds himself grouped with these individualists, despite his desire for communalism in society. In his observations on the “noble savageâ€Â, Rousseau contends that they act in very instinctive, and therefore mostly individualistic ways. On the contrary, Jefferson believes that if a person has a moral sense, and would act morally if they were alone, they would continue to act morally in a communal setting. (Matthews 64) With this backdrop of the American Indian, Jefferson sets forth the rhetorical question of which society would be better, “Whether no law… or too much law… submits man to the greatest evil?†His conclusion is clear that too much law is a greater evil. In his explanation of why he came to this conclusion, Jefferson explains that “the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves.†(Matthews 62) Jefferson even goes so far as to contend that those societies “which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments.†(Matthews 62) It is this conclusion that really gives the full impact Jefferson’s theories. While founding fathers like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were preaching a big government with a big constituency and capitalism as its backdrop, Jefferson was radically appealing to a different set of values, the values of equality and community with agriculture as the backdrop. It is under Jefferson’s vision of humankind that one can easily imagine a society which has no laws or government, but which exists with just as much, if not more, respect for justice and well-being.

With Jefferson’s ideals of self-government established, it is now possible to examine those ideals as they apply to today’s world. It would seem that today, just as during Jefferson’s time, the most important aspect of his theory exists in his discussion of humankind’s innate morality. In America especially, morality has come to the forefront of society and even on the international level Jefferson’s views on alternatives to law seem very important.

Jefferson explained that American Indians were able to live without law because they had another form of “governanceâ€Â, that of public opinion. Social norms, in Jefferson’s eyes, have just as much weight as an authoritarian law, and exist as a much better mechanism to “legislate†(for lack of a better term) action. When taking this approach of public opinion affecting action and morality specifically, one can look to the Bush administration and its blatant refusal to examine public opinion, even when it manifested itself as established law. Greg Moses explains that the Bush administration has been offering up the equivalent of a “moral civil warâ€Â, both at home and abroad. (Moses 1) Public opinion doesn’t matter, and the President has even come out publicly with this claim. Before the “War on Terror†began millions of Americans hit the streets pleading with Bush not to pursue the war. However, instead of Bush actually representing the American people, he just blew the protesters off as nothing but “focus groups.†(Moses 1) On a grander scale, President Bush and his administration have time and time again failed to adhere to international law, a sort of established public opinion. The human rights and liberties offered up under international law are often times moral beliefs that have been somewhat universalized. A big part of international law deals with human rights, a definite moral issue, and when President Bush and his administration just blow off established moral values as worthless he flies in the face of what Jefferson set forth as human nature.

On the home front, Bush has repeatedly flown in the face of public opinion. Despite the documented polls in which the majority of Americans proclaim that the Bush administration is heading in the wrong direction with its “War on Terrorâ€Â, Bush just dismisses the views of the American people in favor of “staying the courseâ€Â, even if the end of the course is destruction. When reexamining what Jefferson says about the three types of societies, it is clear that the United States must fit within one of two, the only two which consist of a government. However, when examining Jefferson’s descriptions of the two societies, one which involves the “will of everyone†having a “just influence†and the other involving “force†(Matthews 63), it would seem that the constant denial of the views of “focus groups†by this administration would put the USA on par with the monarchies of old.

Despite the aging and perverting of Thomas Jefferson’s theories, it would seem clear that much of what he had to say still holds quite a bit of weight in today’s world. Jefferson’s call to a society where morality matters and where people can actually have their voice heard is definitely a call to arms in today’s society. Jefferson realized humans weren’t perfect, but he believed in the ability of mankind, of society, and possibly of government, to progress and it appears that this society, more specifically this government, has failed to progress at all and instead has found itself in a rapid decline backwards towards oppression and tyranny. As one returns to examine Jefferson’s philosophy and consider its relevancy to today’s world, it must be believed that Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he saw what the leaders of this country are now doing. Despite all the flaws, however, Jefferson would still hold hope, as should we all, with the knowledge that no matter what happens now, there is always the possibility of remedy later on, and the possibility of reversing our course and actually heading in the direction Jefferson hoped we would, and the direction we were on for quite some time.

Although Thomas Jefferson has been grouped with many others as a “founding father†of our modern day government and marketplace, it would seem that when one actually closely examines the true theories of Jefferson, he stands in opposition of what the United States has become. With an examination of his view on the nature of man and his studies into the American Indian it can be concluded quite simply that Jefferson wanted something different, something better, something our world is progressing further and further away from. Thomas Jefferson believed in the perfectibility and progressiveness of mankind, but it would seem he was looking for progression in a different direction, a direction that promotes unity, responsibility and harmony, like the societies of the original Americans lived for so long.

Works Cited

Matthews, Richard K., The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson. Lawrence, Kansas: The

University Press of Kansas, 1984.

Moses, Greg. “A Moral Civil Warâ€Â. Alternet.org 27 November 2004.

.