In fact, he goes on to state that we even have a duty to actively help others under the state of nature, for the same reason. Thus for Locke, the idea that a Law of Nature, derived from the wishes of God, exists in the state of nature implies that a law-enforcer is required to oversee the law, otherwise it would be an empty notion. Thus, Hobbes and Locke both seem to agree that a sovereign body is required to govern and enforce laws. Moreover, Locke believed that man entered into a social contract to preserve his property, since no property was guaranteed in a peaceful, yet lawless state of nature. He encouraged each man to take only as much land as he required (by mixing their labour, given to them by God, with the natural resources, also given to them by God), so that every man has some land to live off. However, the increasing scarcity of resources and the invention of money pushed man, in Locke’s view, towards the creation of a state. Money, as a non-perishable means of exchange, allowed humans to accumulate wealth without the risk of yields getting spoilt. Consequently, some accumulated more than others, creating imbalances that lead to Hobbes’ idea of a state of war. According to Rousseau, the creation of private property was part of the downfall of man, leading them to fall out of his idyllic state of nature and form a people characterized by inequality, competition and corruption. Yet, in order to maintain their safety and freedom, and return to the state of nature, humans surrendered their rights not to a single person but to the community as a whole. Rousseau called this the ‘general will’, and this concept forms the basis for his beliefs on the legitimacy of the sovereign’s political power. Another area of disagreement, between Hobbes and Rousseau, lies in whether legitimate political authority can be found in nature. Hobbes argues that it can, within the relationship of a father and a son. He states that the father has authority over his son and that this dynamic only exists for the preservation of the son. He believed that the relationship between a ruler and a subject follows a similar structure - since the ruler aims to act in the best interests of his subjects and cares for them, he deserves to have unrestricted power over them. Such reasoning very quickly assumes the natural superiority of rulers over the ruled, but Rousseau believed that all men are equal in the state of nature. Furthermore, Rousseau states that such superiority is sustained by force, not by nature, thus political authority has no origin in nature. Rousseau uses this attack on Hobbes’ state of nature to question the right of force in maintaining political authority. He asserts that if might is the only determinant of right, then people obey rules not because they should, but because they have to. Likewise, under the same logic, it would be perfectly legitimate for the people to overthrow their ruler, since they are exercising greater might. As a result, Rousseau reached the conclusion that there can be no political authority upheld by force since people do simply whatever is within their power. Accordingly, Rousseau’s concept of a ‘general will’ is born as an answer to the issue of legitimate rule. Likewise, Hobbes thought that man, due to self-preservation, would be willing to surrender their freedom to an authority in exchange for order and security within a contract. The difference with Hobbes’ philosophy of government is that he asserts the need for absolute obedience of the subjects and absolute power of the authority under this contract. Thus, he constructed the concept of a ‘ruler’ or ‘monarch’, and he believed that such an authority would be trustworthy since he would be bound by natural law. This ruler would be the decisive arbiter in all cases. As Hobbes argues, to recognize alternative sources of power would be to risk a return to anarchy and the state of nature, since the two heads of the Leviathan (representing the split sovereignty) would contend with one another, risking the life of the Leviathan itself. The same instability is true of sovereignty shared across the divisions of government. Consequently, Hobbes’ belief that sovereignty has to be absolute is derived from the severe behavioural precepts that he constructs in his state of nature. Locke, conversely, states that unlimited sovereignty goes against natural law and he argues for a constitutionally limited government. This is because he believed that man did not surrender all their rights to one single individual under the contract, but instead they only surrendered the right to maintain order and enforce the law of nature. He was adamant that man could not surrender any other rights, such as the right to life or the right to liberty, because he thought these rights were the natural rights of men. Under a newly created political society (established through the contract), men gained laws, judges to arbitrate laws, and the executive power needed to enforce these laws. In Locke’s view, these laws serve to secure man’s position and man’s property, which are the main reasons why man decided to build this compact and escape the survivable, yet uncertain state of nature. Moreover, as
138
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker