This is the easiest way to distribute this to some people who wanted to read it, and I dont want to e-mail it to them... So if you have time to spend reading it, go for it, if not, don't bother. Its only a paper I did for political theory, and I want to see what I could have changed had i had more time and more people to revise it for me!
The basis for most of today’s governmental and political structures and ways of thinking can be attributed to two major thinkers in the scope of Political Theory. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) were born and raised in England during the change from the Tudors to the Commonwealth and back to the Tudors. Both men, at some point in their life, fled England in order to avoid excessive conflict with the government. In their consecutive major works, both men discuss humans in the state of nature, the natural laws, social contracts, and formation of a government. Their individual thoughts on politics are varied due to the differences in some fundamental ideas about the four aforementioned themes. On the surface, these themes seem quite similar, but when looked into more deeply, their differing political ideas can be expressed.
"State of nature is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state'sfoundation” (Wikipedia I). This was one of the prominent topics in Hobbes’ most famous work; Leviathan (1651). Hobbes’ view of humans in the state of nature is quite pessimistic when compared to other political thinkers, going as far as saying that life as a human is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 6). He believes that “every man is enemy to every man” (Hobbes 6), thus assuming that men are in a condition of constant war, which does not include physical fighting, but rather consists of the constant threat of another human. One of the reasons that this war is capable of existence comes from Hobbes’ idea of human equality in the state of nature. Though men may not be physically or mentally equal, each man alone has the ability to pose a threat towards another man, therefore allowing any man to hold power over others, catalyzing the state of war.
Locke contrasts these pessimistic ideas of the state of nature in his most famous major work; The Second Treatise of Government (1690). He believes that men are in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke §4). He goes on to explain that even though men are in a state of liberty, they are not given free reign to destroy themselves or any other creature (Locke §6). Locke agrees with Hobbes when he states that all men are equal, but disagrees in the reasoning behind this statement. Hobbes believes that all men are equal and do not hurt one another for fear of loss and potentially death. On the contrary, Locke believes that men are created equal in the eyes of God, and are therefore required to follow the natural laws set by God.
These natural laws that Locke discusses can be described concisely by saying that a man is not allowed to harm any creature without just cause. Locke justifies the harm of an individual “may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another” (Locke §6). He defends the idea of equality later by saying that if one man is able to punish this way; all men are able to carry out such punishment (Locke §7).
Hobbes has a slightly different approach to the idea of natural laws. He implies that the first natural law is that everyone is entitled to everything, and when every man is against every other man “this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues” (Hobbes 6-7). His second natural law is typically associated with the gospel; “Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them. And that law of all men” (Hobbes 8). Hobbes is affirming his ideas about the state of nature when he expresses the natural laws. He is asserting that there are only two natural laws to bind us together and without the creation of a social contract to compel people to live in harmony, there is a complete state of war.
A social contract is “an implicit agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members, or between individuals” (Wikipedia II). Today’s governments follow this type of social contract, and it is generally known that the reason we have governments is to maintain security within a group of people. Locke would agree with this assumption, and further explain it by saying that people consent to a social contract to “unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living amongst another” (Locke §95). He goes on to illustrate that “when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority” (Locke §96). By declaring this, he is implying that every man in the society must give up some, but not all personal liberty in order to attain security. In the explanation of the state of nature, it is expressed that man has certain limitations on his liberty, which have been discussed above. By instituting a social contract, a person’s liberties are naturally diminished, and the main goal is not only preservation of the self, but preservation of mankind (Locke §7).
The reasoning behind Locke’s desire to instate a social contract lies in the protection of property. In the state of nature, people are allowed to punish an offender if a personal offense has been done to any part of a person’s property, and Locke maintains throughout the Second Treatise of Government that the reason for having a social contract is to keep order and have a judge to watch over citizens of the society so that each citizen does not have to take on the responsibilities himself. The idea of property is extended past the mere concept of material possessions to the broader scope of the self.
Hobbes takes a different approach by saying that social contracts are initiated out of fear of other humans. By giving up all liberties, one is guaranteed security from the sovereign. In order to get this sovereign into power, the entire society must unanimously renounce their liberties, for if one does not, the entire will be unable to function in the desired manner. If one man among a group has the liberties to take punishment and other matters into his own hands, the entire group has the potential to fall and the power of the sovereign will be limited. He asserts that the only way to have a government in which there is no confusion, one must rule and have complete control over all judiciary decisions. Later in Leviathan, Hobbes writes about how any limitation on this sovereign power will cause the sovereign to fall and will lead humans back into the state of nature, and the process of constructing a new social contract and government must begin again.
While Hobbes trusts that a single all-powerful ruler is the only way of attaining a functional government, Locke states the opposite, saying that “it is evident, that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil-government at all” (Locke §90). By denouncing the validity of a single all-powerful sovereign, Locke is further asserting that a social contract is preserving men as a society, rather than men individually. The formation of any government is not simply based on the act of renouncing all rights, like Hobbes, but is rather decided by what the majority deems right after a social contract has been initiated. These governments may become corrupt and act outside of his natural law at any time, and if the majority feels that it is right, the government may be changed.
“The first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and… every person in it” (Locke §134). The legislative branch of Locke’s government makes the laws, but is not entitled to function outside of the natural law, which is “unwritten and so no where to be found but in the minds of men” (Locke §136). This brings up the question of what exactly is to be done when the governing body begins to act outside of this natural law. Because people initiated the construction of this government, they have the ability, and even the obligation to alter the basic foundation of the government until it reaches a desirable and mixed form of government. Whichever government a society decides to use, there are three branches that must be existent; the legislative, as discussed above, the executive and the federative (Locke §134-135). These three branches of the government work together and act as tools of subordination upon the other branches. This places less responsibility in the hands of the members, which helps to preserve the societal government without becoming corrupt. These two men both articulate and convincing in their arguments about the state of nature and the way in which societies and governments are created, are the predecessors to modern ways of thinking about each issue. Both speak of equality and liberty as being intrinsic parts of human nature, which is something that most modern societies build off of. Their influences reach deep into the heart of modern societies, including the United States. The Constitution of the United States is very closely related to a Lockeian perspective of how a government should be run, and the main virtues that are held by men in the United States include those of liberty and equality. The United States has adopted the governmental system that Locke assumes works best, as well as the system of naturalization and other forms of assuming ones self into the government. Hobbes has also been a major influence in political systems. Though the ideas of equality and liberty seem to be hindered in the Lockeian perspective, many dictators and tyrants adopt the Hobbsian perspective that one sovereign power must rule and enforce his will and his truths about what the natural law includes. By studying the earliest “modern liberal thinkers,” we can see where our ideas about liberty and equality originated, and can get a well rounded perspective about where the governmental systems that are in power today began.
