a territory populated by great landlords or by distinct religious groups generally imposed larger costs on a conqueror than one of fragmented power or homogeneous culture.
This could be because great landlords or distinct religious groups would be more powerful than homogenous culture or fragmented power. It would be harder for a conqueror to eliminate them than it would be to eliminate a homogenous culture.
Since governments themselves commonly simulate, stimulate, or even fabricate threats of external war
If we link this reading with the previous one, we can say that people pay to the government in order for it just to exist. In the previous reading, we said that the absence of a government causes unrest and lack of security that causes fear within citizens (citizens whose security is part of their individual interest). So, if the government is a racketeer, the protection it mainly offers would be its existence.
the European experience, properly understood, will help us to grasp what is happening today, perhaps even to do something about it.
Although we can use history and previous experiences like the European experience to understand what is happening today, I believe every situation is unique and requires it's own research, thus, the European experience might give us some context, but won't be that helpful.
Hobbes’s emphasis on combining coercion with consent
But if the state is weak, then it would be difficult to threaten people with coercion if the people know that the state is weak enough to not be able to implement coercion.
it had 192.
Some states were later divided like North and South Sudan
which challenged the legitimacy of religious authorities and the divine right of kings to rule,
But during the age of Enlightenment, a lot of Kings and Queens supported enlightenment, like Queen Catherine the Great and Frederick II or Frederick the Great.
In Japan, the head of state is Emperor Akihito, who publicly personifies and represents the spirit of the national community; he also upholds that community’s legitimacy. In contrast, the prime minister of Japan is the chief executive officer of the government administration. To make the under-standing of the state even more precise, we can also distinguish it from the nation,
But, in case of the US or Egypt, how can we describe the state? I find the difference between the state and the government a little confusing.
fear
It is quite smart how Hobbes links people's need of security with the how civil war and unrest causes fear, and, thus, if people don't care about the collective interest, unrest would ensue and every individual would lose his security
Reconciling individual and collective interests is difficult in politics because some people want to advance their own interests regardless of how doing so might affect others’ interests.
This doesn't only happen in politics. It happens all around us. If the collective interest is good enough and the individual interest is better, people will almost always go for the individual interest. Rarely do they go for the collective interest.
The world was not always divided into clearly delineated borders as it is today
In history and international politics, we took that Europe in the 1600s was mostly under the control of the pope and the Church, and, thus, most countries in Europe didn't have strict borders like today.
. Other contemporary examples of failed states include Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan, and Haiti.
Most of these failed states are war torn, like Afghanistan's war against Taliban