unprofitable or unfair. 9 Therefore, Hobbes is proposing an absolute monarchy or, at best, an
absolute democracy. No surprise that twentieth century juntas and contemporary
authoritarian regimes have security as the flagship of their legitimateness.
The fundamental difference between Hobbes’ and Locke’s social contract is that the
Right of Nature becomes a part of a defined list of Natural Rights that the individual wants to
preserve rather than bargain away. 10 People make the social contract in order to enjoy their
Natural Rights in the Civil Society under the protection of the government whose raison d’
etat is to protect those rights. Therefore, the state is an artificial construct, predated by
society, which derives its legitimacy from the people’s consent who decide which form it will
take. Its legitimacy is automatically forfeited when the Natural Rights are infringed.
Infringement of the rights is, according to Locke, the equivalent of going back to a condition
far worse than the State of Nature. 11 Therefore, while Locke’s concept of political power
remains similar to Hobbes’ (the jurisdiction of making and imposing laws), it is based on
consent rather than absolute authority in the name of security. And that because giving the
legislator, whose judgment cannot be more than an opinion, the authority to prescribe law is
like giving him power over moral reasoning comparable to that of Hobbes’ sovereign.
Therefore, even the most useful legislative or executive act needs authorization and that
imposes limitations on those appointed to use authority which becomes synonymous with
the society’s power. 12 However, liberty indicates that a part of human nature, with all its
impulses and self-interest, remain within the governing and the governed while certain
circumstances affect the balance between liberty and security. Thus, in such a liberal society
9 Devine, pp. 743-750. 10 McClelland, pp. 236 237. 11 Goldwin, p. 134. 12 Devine, pp. 751-755.
28
Made with FlippingBook HTML5