BEN GALE AND ADAM BARKMAN
First came the Great Mushroom War. Then, the mushroom bomb. The world shattered into a deep, dark green and skull-shaped souls howled across the land. After that, life was different. Bits of debris, smashed electronics, and destroyed cars litter the landscape. Entire skyscrapers and highways, collapsed and overgrown, can be seen across the horizon. The civilizations that existed before the Great Mushroom War were much like ours. When the mushroom bomb dropped and the landscapes were decimated, nations and rulers ceased to exist. The world became a blank slate, upon which the few survivors could write. The inhabitants of Ooo stood on the threshold of a brave new world, one in which they were free from any past society or government, and could create whatever world they chose. . . .
But what if they don’t always have an easy and free choice? What if Marceline’s dad wants to come from the Nightosphere and destroy everyone? They would be screwed if they didn’t have Finn and Jake, or Princess Bubblegum, or even the Ice King to protect their people from destruction. This blank slate with no government is great, but it leaves a lot of room for bad things to happen. And even though Finn, Jake, Bubblegum, and the Ice King have flaws, they are still in positions of power because their people don’t want other rulers instead. No one wants the Lich, or the Lord of Evil to be in charge. So how did they end up choosing Princess Bubblegum or the Ice King, or even that weird, murderous Forest Wizard to be in charge?
The “state of nature” is a concept that we’ve kicked around since the Middle Ages. The ancients hinted at the horrors of anarchy and man without government—Plato talked about these men becoming like werewolves, ungoverned and dangerous. But no one actually began to ask what humans were like before laws were put into place and governments were established. It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) began to talk explicitly of a “state of nature,” which he considered “nasty, brutish, and short.” And even with government, Hobbes thought things still often sucked, as governments were established through fear and violence.
John Locke (1632–1704), born almost fifty years later, imagined a different, more egalitarian world where people made social contracts with each other to establish law. And Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), on the cusp of the French Revolution, saw the state of nature as one free from ownership and property. These thinkers were the fathers of Liberalism, one of the most influential ideas of the last three hundred years. And in the land of Ooo, we see these philosophers’ ideas at work as the characters in Adventure Time try to carve out their civilizations from war-ravaged, magically mutated, and candy-filled land of Ooo.
In Ooo, after the Great Mushroom War, we get to see how these ideas actually work together to create our own world and government. What we see is the world cleared of government, and then the fighting, politicking, and adventuring that leads to new world orders and governments. The question that really matters to the people of Ooo, is pretty obvious. . . . “Were they better off in the state of nature, without government, or are these new monarchies, dictatorships, and potential democracies the right way to go?”
Freeeeeeeedom!
“Liberalism” is a political theory that focuses on individual rights and freedoms. It charges governing bodies like Princess Bubblegum with protecting people’s rights and freedoms. Early on, this protection often was accomplished by a smaller government; any larger governments would take away more power and freedom from the individuals. Liberalism distinguished itself from the previous theories by having the well-being of the citizens as its primary focus: the government existed by them and for them. Earlier theories had this relationship reversed, where the citizens existed to be ruled over by their governments, often claiming a God-given right to rule. Many of the early Liberal philosophers rooted their theories in a Christian theology, but moved away from the “divine right of kings” by exploring the “state of nature.”
What was this state of nature? It was the way that people lived before they had any society—No Bubblegum, no Finn and Jake, just a whole bunch of candies running around without anyone in charge. The political philosophers of the Enlightenment saw themselves as constantly on the edge of great discoveries. Political discussion centered on the basic rules of governing, as if they were as clear as following a recipe for making spaghetti. Philosophers agreed on a general concept of natural law: rights and wrongs were built in to our very existence and could be found through reason. With a foundation like natural law, they thought, there must be a recipe of government built in to us, it just needed to be found.
This idea of built-in rules can be seen in Finn and Jake’s adventures, as they constantly make decisions over right and wrong based on gut reactions. They don’t need to ask if a giant terrorizing a village is a good or bad thing. They do what they can to help those weaker than them, and try to stop unfair treatment. This is instinctive; they never wonder if trying to hook up a giant snail, or punching the Ice King in the face is the right thing to do.
To imagine what a government should look like, each philosopher began with trying to figure out how the state of nature actually looked. Was it a mess of ogres, giants, and Gunters, trying to kill every person in sight? Or was it a walk in the park? In the world they thought of, there were certain problems that naturally came up, and governments, they believed, were created in the hope of solving them.
Ooo is post-apocalyptic, with (we think) only one living human. This makes it the perfect playground for Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The land of Ooo is an untouched state of nature for each of these philosophers, and in Ooo we see how Liberalism, in its many forms can take hold and flourish, or, occasionally, flounder.
The Forest Wizard Can Kill Whomever He Wants
For Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”: people are free, equal, and naturally self-interested. Everyone is equal in that they are all able to kill another; free in that they very well may do so without any particular restraints. If two people want the same thing, they fight for it; the natural escalation is to war over the same things. The state of nature for Hobbes was a fearful war of all, against all. To sum up this state of nature: life sucks, and people are jerks. Like being stuck beside a baby on a ten-hour flight, this state is something that people would do almost anything to avoid.
But this mess of anarchy is hard to break out of. It doesn’t just happen with a simple agreement. Hobbes pointed out that people are unlikely to hold to their agreement the moment that something more advantageous pops up. This is where the government comes in. Out of this mess of anarchy, a social contract arises that has fear at its core. People give up their rights and freedoms, and raise up a “Leviathan” (a giant monster, meaning political authority) to rule. Really, this agreement is about the most basic right of self-preservation. Candies, lumpy space people, or even vampires are all trying their best not to get eaten, squished, and terrorized.
In raising up a government that will demand allegiance and punish any failures harshly, people no longer need to fear each other, and, now, only have to fear one—the Leviathan. This Leviathan is a government made up of the collective will of all who are under it, bound together by fear. Through fear of punishment for breaking their contract, peace is kept—since peaceful means are much preferable to going to war, peace is in everyone’s best interest.
In the episode “Storytelling,” Finn is nearly killed by the forest animals and their Leviathan, the Forest Wizard. The animals are angry, and don’t understand what Finn’s trying to do, namely save Jake by telling him a crazy story. All they know is that he’s been picking fights, wrecking Boobafina’s relationships, disturbing the peace, and making a general nuisance of himself. They get fed up enough that the Forest Wizard, with the help of the forest animals, stops the terror by locking Finn in a cage and nearly killing him.
The ability to destroy people who try to fall back into a state of nature is exactly why a Leviathan exists. Regardless of whether the forest animals believe the wizard is a jerkface or not, he is in charge, and is the one who brings the punishment. The wizard has the power to kill, and the other forest creatures respect it. The wizard would probably treat any of the other forest creatures the same way if they were acting like Finn. But, the wizard also does his best to act fairly. Just rulers often last longer than tyrants.
But even though the Forest Wizard has a crazy amount of power (he can freakin’ kill people!), he still needs to have some idea of natural law. According to Hobbes, natural law prohibits us from harming ourselves and includes our right to fight for ourselves. Natural law also suggests that a peaceful solution is best when you are trying to preserve your own life simply as a matter of practicality—peaceful solutions don’t involve you putting yourself in danger quite the same way that going to war does. The Leviathan is moderated by self-interest. If those who are under him are discontented, fearful, and abused enough that they are willing to risk death to overthrow him, then he won’t last long. But, he can’t be nice enough that there is no fear of crossing him. Push the forest animals too far as a tyrant, or fail to protect them by being too nice, and they will get a new Leviathan to take the Forest Wizard’s place.
As for what a Leviathan looked like, Hobbes argues that the Leviathan can take one of three forms: a democracy, in which the people set up legislation to govern themselves, an oligarchy, in which a few people take power and rule, or a monarchy, in which a single person commands the people. Of these, Hobbes thinks a monarchy is best because it leaves the least room for infighting at the top, and allows for a strong head with little arguing over decisions. The Forest Wizard, though he may listen to the opinions of the forest creatures, ultimately is a monarch, and doesn’t share the decision-making process with anyone.
Hobbes in many ways is considered the father of liberalism, because he centered his theory around the people; governments (Leviathans) are still put in place by the people, and must serve the people’s purpose. The Leviathan is made up of the people’s consent; he is kept in check by the people. The Leviathan may determine the laws of his country, but he still has practical limits. When the Goblin King Xergiok becomes too tyrannical, spanking everyone he possibly can, he causes enough terror over his subjects that they allow Finn and Jake to kick him out and take over. If a Leviathan abuses the people too much, fails to keep them safe, or generally acts like an insufferable ass, then they will rise up and install a new Leviathan who will rule them better. The Leviathan depends on the people being at least somewhat happy with life to stay in charge.
Why Bubblegum and Ice King Are Good, and Lemongrab Is Bad
To John Locke, the state of nature was one of equality. Unlike Hobbes, who was a bit of a downer, Locke thought that people, at their most basic, have the right to life, liberty, and property, but don’t have any right to cause harm to themselves or another, unless it is a matter of survival. This state of nature is governed by the overarching law of nature, which is reason. As Locke says, “Every man has a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature.”1 Besides the right of punishment, every person has the right to seek reparations from the party that caused them harm—every kidnapped princess has the right to kick the Ice King in the shin. When an agreement is made, both people take it upon themselves to uphold their word and hold the other to account if they fail to honor the agreement. When Finn and Jake promise to deliver the royal tarts, they make that agreement with Princess Bubblegum, who does her best to make sure they carry it out (by threatening them with her death).
The problem this raises is that people may mess up when they are dishing out punishment. Someone could have an attachment that influences their reason, such as friendship or love; they could also be too hurt from the situation to clearly reason, and go overboard with their revenge. This injustice causes people to break away from the natural law that they are to abide by—when they give up natural law, they give up reason, and cease to be people, only animals that must be put down, or non-talking candy that must be eaten. Because of this potential to screw things up royally, Locke proposes civil societies formed by a social contract as the solution to this problem of the state of nature.
The state of nature lacks three distinct things:
1. Established codes of law.
2. A public and fair judge.
and
3. The power to carry out a sentence.
In order to gain these three things and escape the state of nature people give up their right to do whatever they want, and their right to get revenge. These are the requirements of moving past a state of nature to achieve a safe civil society. The lack of freedom simply means that they now have to live under laws that are enforced by an impartial ruling power. The ruling power can take the form of a democracy, an oligarchy, or a monarchy, but the end result is that the problems of the state of nature are patched up by making a social contract.
Under this contract, each person gives up their rights of revenge and submits to the laws and rulers. For example, when the Ice King pisses off pretty much the entire Candy Kingdom by generally being a toolbox, none of the candy people take revenge. Instead, they let the Princess Bubblegum give the orders, and decide how to punish him.
The Candy Kingdom, with Princess Bubblegum as the ruler, fulfills Locke’s theory of civil government formed by a social contract. All of the candy people gives up their right to take judicial matters into their own hands, and instead let their ruler, Princess Bubblegum (who often appoints Finn and Jake to help) deal with things. Whether it’s protecting them from a horde of candy zombies, or from Susan Strong’s fish people, Princess Bubblegum is the monarch in charge of the Candy Kingdom and is expected to keep everyone safe. She sets up laws that limit behavior, like making it illegal to eat candies that talk, and has taken upon herself the roles of judge and executioner, using Finn and Jake to work under her in acting on behalf of the candy people. When Princess Bubblegum, Finn, and Jake deal with the Lich, they are fulfilling their part of Locke’s social contract, and keeping the civil society together. When they stop Susan Strong and her people from eating everyone, or causing them to explode with fear, Finn and Jake are fulfilling the agreement.
In the Earl of Lemongrab fiasco, we see Locke’s theories distance themselves from Hobbes’s more clearly. Princess Bubblegum is not a Leviathan, determining the rules on a whim, only moderated by fear of the candy people rising up. Instead, she is a monarch ruling with the consent of the people in the form of a social contract; the agreement, and the laws that surround it mean that she must be of a certain age to rule. When the Earl of Lemongrab comes to take over, she bows to the laws of the land and lets him. Even when the Earl turns out to be a terrible ruler and, for the good of the candy people, needs to be deposed, she still makes sure that she is eighteen years old again before she retakes the throne.
We also see Locke’s theories at work in the Ice Kingdom. The Ice King establishes law, forbidding trespassing, setting up marriage rites, and giving the penguins the right to vote. He also works for the preservation of the Ice Kingdom and its inhabitants by helping to stop the Lich with Finn and Jake. Though he may not be the best ruler, he still holds the power of retribution, and since he seems to maintain the rule, the penguins must be in favor of the social contract they have agreed to—keeping him in power.
The City of Thieves and the Problems of Property
Locke and Hobbes both have some lovely ideas about how governments stop chaos from coming out of a state of nature, but what if this state of nature isn’t so bad? What if governments don’t solve anything?
For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the state of nature was the brightest, happiest place. He is famous for beginning his book, The Social Contract, with the phrase “Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains.” Rousseau’s state of nature is absolutely free, with no repressive governments, no dominating hierarchies, and there are no artificial needs, such as shoes (or giant snail shells for slugs). Rousseau saw these artificial needs as the result of setting up repressive societies that did not have absolute freedom as their core value. The state of nature does not have law, property, or some sense of moral inequality, and so, there is no desire to oppress or restrict another’s freedom. But what about Princess Bubblegum, and her Lockean Candy Kingdom? Is it rubbish that has corrupted the beautiful state of anarchy by imposing rules and coercing people to give up their freedom?
Had Rousseau been born two hundred years later, he would have been the first hippie in line for Woodstock (and, given some of his later theories, probably the first one to find out that the brown acid was bad). He is much like Tree Trunks: a mixture of naivety, optimism, and recklessness.
Rousseau argued that ultimately, at our core, we as people are good, and, when we are not influenced to act otherwise by restrictions on our freedom and livelihood, then we continue in our good and uncorrupted nature. The state of nature existed in a time before rationality and morality, in a very simple way, before it was corrupted by civil societies.
If we take Rousseau’s account seriously, Finn and Jake exist in a state of nature. They are free to do whatever they want; they have no obligations beyond their desires for sleep, food, and “smoochin’.” They’re motivated by their own self-preservation, and are compassionate in their responses to other people’s hardships. We never see them rely on others for the basic necessities of life. They are carefree, happy, healthy, and living as Rousseau could only dream.
This is where Rousseau differs from Locke and Hobbes: he does not see the state of nature as something to fight. Instead, we should try to retain those principles of freedom, in a more complex world than the state of nature that they came from. Property came about when someone put a fence around a tree, said “this is mine,” and no one tried to take it from him. This is where the goodness of nature began to break down.
We see this in the episode “City of Thieves.” Property is a nearly meaningless thing because of the inequality that came from the differences between the haves and the have-nots. This corrupts even Finn and Jake, the innocent ones without need. The acquisition of property, as Rousseau said, can be the beginning of corruption.
Moral inequality happened when we began to improve our ability to meet our basic needs, and started working with others in increasingly complex survival methods. Society became more complex and we became more dependent on it (imagine living without a cell phone once you’ve owned one for a few years). Moral inequality sprang up as people became less independent and free, and people with more stuff began to oppress people with less. This reduces us to bandits, thieves, and rapscallions, all fighting a sort of class struggle. Those in the land of Ooo without royal tarts, for example, are constantly trying to steal them. Their struggle is between the haves and the have-nots, caused by the creation of property and a corruption of the state of nature.
What Happened?
So, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau each contributed to the creation of the theory of Liberalism. Their ideas had a significant influence on Western European political thought throughout the 1600s and 1700s. The French Revolution was particularly influenced by Rousseau, and his excessively romantic and idealistic theories of the state of nature. This didn’t go terribly well for the French, bringing in Napoleon and a massive war. The ideas of Liberalism also took root in America; John Locke was probably the biggest influence on the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Locke’s base of “life, liberty, and property” was amended to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” becoming an incredibly famous document.
The growth of Liberalism was by no means a clean process. Like the Mushroom War that brought about the current governments in the land of Ooo, a great many wars and tyrannies took place before something functional and stable was created with Liberalism. But now, the thought of a government established without a respect for human rights is unthinkable. Hobbes argued for the necessity of the government caring about its citizens, and Locke and Rousseau took it a step further, hammering out the language of rights.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, the United Nations issued a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, binding all of humanity under an idea of freedom that was birthed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. It’s these essential rights that keep the land of Ooo functioning, more or less. Without them, we’d have zombie candies running amok, penguins oppressing people, and Susan Strong and the Hyoomans happily munching away on the populace. Sweet!
1 Second Treatise of Government.