As humans, it is our natural instinct to do whatever it takes to survive. The state of nature describes man before any type of civil society is introduced. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both social contract theorists that have two very different opinions about how exactly we behave and what type of governing body would be most successful. While both Hobbes and Locke agree that individual power must be forfeited in order to achieve peace, Hobbes’s idea of how much power is extreme.
Locke’s theories explain human nature more accurately and portray a better form of government through his ideas on natural right and democracy. John Locke describes the state of nature as a logical abstraction from the essential nature of man. According to him, man was created independent, free, and equal in the state of nature. According to Locke, we have the ability to recognize and use reason.
This gives man the right to exercise the law of nature. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not quit his station wistfully, so by the lie reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and 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, 9, 6). The law of nature forbids anyone from harming themselves or others and requires each to preserve mankind when their own preservation is not in competition.
Men are in a state of perfect freedom which means that they can do with their property as they see fit without relying on the will of another man so long as it complies with the law of nature. Locke believes property is a basic right. Because man is independent, free, and equal, if someone harms you or your property, you have the right to punish the violator so long as it is in within the bounds of the law of nature. This can become problematic because men are desirous and can potentially abuse this power when desire for punishment clouds reason.
Locke calls this the “inconveniences of the state of nature” and explains that the solution to this problem comes in the form of a civil society or government. It is unreasonable for men to be judges of themselves, so government was created to combat partiality and violence among men and to ensure equal jurisdiction and fairness. In order to enter into a civil society, individual power must be given up for power as a whole.
Each man must put himself under obligation to one society and unite as one, and only after doing so can a lawful government be formed. Although Hobbes argues that men naturally live in a state of war, humans are social beings and possess a desire for happiness and aversion to misery. It is valid that man will do whatever is necessary to survive, but history has shown that there is strength in numbers and if Hobbes is correct, we would not be capable of happily working together to form a civil society and protect ourselves.
From the state of nature, men form a commonwealth for security reasons. Joining into a commonwealth is beneficial because the more people working together, the more protection they will have. There are three different main forms of government; monarchy in which power resides in one individual, aristocracy in which power resides among a group of people, and democracy in which power resides in all the people. The difference between them is who is the sovereign. Hobbes believes in absolute sovereignty.
The Leviathan is essentially a made up person that Hobbes uses to represent the idea of a sovereign government. “One person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defense” (Hobbes, 109, 13). The Leviathan is considered sovereign and men must give up all of their power to him in order to reach a state of peace.
Hobbes believes having subordinate people in power is dangerous because if there more than one body is given sovereign power, no one will agree and Hobbes argues that the commonwealth will return to a state of nature: in his mind, war. While he does believe creating a social contract is necessary, Hobbes advocates for the complete surrender of power to the sovereign by all in the commonwealth. Hobbes states that “every subject is by this institution author of all actions and judgments of the sovereign instituted, it follows that whatsoever he doth, can be no injury to any of his subjects (Hobbes, 112, 6).
Even if a sovereign is accused of wrongdoing, his subjects could deny it and because they are sovereign, there would be no one to judge the discrepancy. This creates a problem for the people of the commonwealth because they have no say in any decisions made for them and the sovereign can never be wrong. Creating a new covenant for themselves or disagreeing with the sovereign in any way results in punishments ranging from expulsion from the commonwealth and left in the state of nature to death.
Hobbes argues that doing so encourages all others to break their covenants and this would result in chaos leading to the downfall of the sovereign. While many societies in history have had success following this form of government, this is problematic because, as Hobbes himself argues, humans naturally do what they feel is best for themselves and this form of government restricts that to only the sovereign. John Locke strongly advocates for democratic rule, which comes more naturally to us as humans.
The role of the state should only be to ensure justice is served. In terms of decision making, that is left to the people as a whole. Today, democracy is the preferred form of government, but Locke is suggesting even a direct democracy would be the best form of government. In a state of democracy, “men being, as had been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.
The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it” (Locke, 52, 95). The basis of this form of government is that man joins freely and is consensually under the rule of the majority of the people.
Because the people voluntarily submit themselves to a certain body of power, they are more likely to agree with what the majority agrees on and therefore produces less conflict. In addition to this, if one does not agree, they have to right to remove themselves from that specific civil society and enter into a new one. This allows for more political freedom and choice among the people. Political power is a right of making laws with penalties of death and all other consequences for the purpose of regulating and preserving property as well as executing and defending these laws.
Under a monarchy, political power is inherited however Locke discredits divine right by pointing out that there is no way to verify Adam and Eve’s descendants and therefore there is no bases for inherited power. In the state of nature, everything is in a state of equality which means no person or being naturally has more power or importance than another. The concept of electing officials to represent the whole is unique to democracy and is it imperative to the success of this kind of government.
If the consent of the majority were not the determining will, a civil society would crumble. Absolute power should not be given to any government for doing so would lead to even less protection of rights than in the state nature itself. If the people cannot act as one body, there cannot be a united society and therefore cannot be a lawful government. One person holding power goes against our natural right to pursue life, liberty, and property as well as infringes on our ability to exercise independent reason in decision making.
