Thomas Hobbes can be distinguished (in a way) as the founder of political liberalism, and the political philosophy of John Locke can be viewed largely as a reaction to Hobbes’ Leviathan. Hobbes and Locke share similarities in the foundations of their political standpoints, but one can quickly note the glaring disagreements between them. They begin on the same premises and share similar viewpoints throughout, but they digress between Hobbes’ arguments for sovereignty and Locke’s arguments for legislative supremacy and prerogative.
Hobbes and Locke both begin with the state of nature as a means of explaining one’s purpose for entering society: both show that the entrance into society is a means of escaping the undesirable state of nature, and both also maintain that all men are equal. Hobbes presumes that this inherent equality causes me to seek any lengths to obtain power and satisfy their ambitions: when two equal men strive for the same goal, competition becomes inevitable and both seek to destroy the other. Hobbes writes that,
“From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining
of our ends. And therefore, if any two men desire the same thing,
which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and
in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only, endeavor to destroy or subdue one
another.” (Hobbes, 75)
Similarly, Locke holds that all men are equal and share natural rights. When a threat to one’s life, liberty, and property emerges, man can seek to defend himself at any cost. Locke writes:
“Force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war - to avoid this state of war - is one great reason for men’s putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature - where there is an authority - from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of war is excluded.” (Second Treatise, 12-14).
In the equality of man’s state of nature, all hold the right to interpret and execute natural law: when another impedes on the rights of a man, the defender contains the full right to interpret this as a threat to his existence, and kill his opponent as a means of defense. For Locke, the government becomes important as an impartial judge of natural law to appeal to, as a means of protecting one’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Both philosophers agree on the inherent state of war that exists within man’s state of nature. However, man’s entrance into society draws differences between Locke and Hobbes.
For Hobbes, one must relinquish all of his natural rights to the commonwealth as a means of seeking peace and self-preservation. The constant fear of the state of war and injustice wrought by others is then transferred only to a fear of the commonwealth. Hobbes writes:
“The only way to erect such a common power as may be able to defend
them from the invasion of foreigners and the injustices of one another,
and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry,
and by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and live
contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man,
or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their will, by plurality
of voices, unto one will.” (Hobbes, 109)
Upon recognizing the “nasty, brutish, and short” condition of man and the misery of the state of nature, the people agree to enter covenant with the sovereign power, relinquish their rights, and live in peace.
Locke, as aforementioned, requires a government that protects the natural rights of the people and acts as an indifferent source of appeal. Locke proclaims that man “wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them” (Second Treatise, 75, 76). The goal of society and government is to allay one’s natural rights into an authority that is agreed upon by the majority, as a means of protecting one’s natural rights. More importantly, the government must serve to protect the citizen’s property. Locke is the champion of liberty, and the government becomes a vessel for providing the most “common good” for the most people.
The reasoning behind man’s entrance into society is important because it lays a foundation on which government is established, and also the powers of government and the law. Although Hobbes and Locke share similarities in their reasoning for entrance into society, their different perspectives create immensely dissimilar governments. Whereas Hobbes’ commonwealth creates an absolute despot with nearly unrestrained power, Locke’s commonwealth creates a republic of limited power that became a model for the founding of America.
On legislative powers, Hobbes writes that, “The legislator in all commonwealths is only the sovereign - the sovereign is the sole legislator” (Hobbes, 173). Not only is the sovereign the only legislator, but:
“The sovereign of a commonwealth, be it an assembly or one man, is not
subject to the civil laws. For having power to make and repeal laws, he
may, when he pleaseth, free himself from that subjection by repealing
those laws that trouble him and making of new; and consequently, he was
free before…he that is bound to himself only is not bound.” (Hobbes, 174)
In the Leviathan, the sovereign holds absolute power. Not only does the sovereign form the laws of society, but is also exempt from following them. Essentially, the sovereign is free to create any laws that he deems fit for his subjects.
Similarly, Locke writes about the supremacy of the legislature in his society:
“The first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the
establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural
law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and of every person in it. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it.” (Second Treatise, 81).
Here, Locke the legislature seems to parallel the sovereign of the Leviathan. The legislative reigns supreme over society, and is erected as a means for the preservation of the people and their property. Conversely, however, Locke establishes limits on the legislative. He holds that the commonwealth must govern according to an established set of standing laws that are agreed upon by the majority, and that the government is exclusively a vessel for peace, protection, and “public good”. Locke writes that,
“The legislative or supreme authority cannot assume to itself a power to
rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense justice
and decide the rights of the subjects by promulgated standing laws, and
known authorized judges.” (Second Treatise, 83)
Unlike the commonwealth of Hobbes, the legislature does not wield the unrestricted power to establish laws arbitrarily.
Further, Locke contends that the legislative must be subject to its own civil laws. He writes:
“No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it. For if any man may do, what he thinks fit, and there be no appeal on earth, for redress or security against any harm he shall do; I ask, whether he be not perfectly still in the state of nature, and so can be no part or member of that civil society: unless anyone will say the state of nature and civil society are one and the same thing.” (Second Treatise, 57)
Locke explains that exemption of the legislative from its own civil laws creates the same lack of appeal that is inherent in the state of nature; this heaves man right back into this undesirable state, which defeats the purpose of society. Here, Locke again seems to be reacting to the Leviathan, and clearly opposes the absolute power of its sovereign.
For Locke, the notion of absolute power that Hobbes presents is outrageous and out of the question: liberty is one of man’s natural rights, and any absolute power serves to procure man’s rights rather than protect them. Locke writes:
“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and
closely joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it,
but by what forfeits his preservation and life together. For a man, not
having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact or his own
consent, enslave himself to anyone, nor put himself under the absolute,
arbitrary power of another to take away his life, when he pleases - this
is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else but the state of
war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive.” (Second Treatise, 15,16)
Locke compares the subjugation of power to a despot to the subjugation of a slave, and argues that any sovereign with absolute power only encourages the state of nature rather than opposes it, and thus defeats the entire purpose of society. Locke further details:
“Whenever his property is invaded by the will and order of his monarch,
he has not only no appeal, as those in society ought to have, but as if he
were degraded from the common state of rational creatures, is denied a
liberty to judge of, or to defend his right, and so is exposed to all the misery and inconveniences that a man can fear from one, who being in the unrestrained state of nature, is yet corrupted with flattery, and armed with power.” (Second Treatise, 55).
For the sake of protection of property and liberty, Locke strongly advocates limited government. He directly opposes the absolute reigning power of the Leviathan’s sovereign.
In the limited government of Lockean society, the people, to some extent, always contain greater power over the legislature. Locke writes:
“No man, or society of men, having a power to deliver up their preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary dominion of another; whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with; and to rid themselves of those who invade this fundamental, sacred, unalterable law of self-preservation, for which they entered into society. And thus, the community may be said in this respect to be always the supreme power.” (Second Treatise, 92)
Locke explains that the people should be relentlessly vigilant of tyranny or usurpation of power, and contends that they always retain their power to revolt against a government that infringes on rights, property, and the “public good”. In this way, although the legislator establishes laws and provides the foundation for society, the legislature only extends its powers as far as it protects these rights and property while establishing the “public good”. Under the despotism of the Leviathan, the subjects are forced to obey all laws set by the sovereign with no say in the methods of government’s administration; the subjects are only allowed to revolt when the sovereign places laws or orders that counter his own safety and self-preservation. The people, in Locke’s government, contain the most power at the foundation of the government and at the dissolution of government: otherwise, their power lies in the legislative.
In his argument for limited government, Locke stresses the importance of a separation of powers. He explains that the legislature will not need to convene constantly, as they will not need to erect laws constantly. The executive branch must be continually active, because laws are in need of constant of enforcement, but this is not so for the legislative. Further, he contends that the establishment of a body with privileges to execute the very laws that it creates can easily lead to corruption and a predilection for private, rather than public, good. Locke uses this reasoning as the basis for his argument of separation of powers (Second Treatise, 90).
Conversely, Hobbes instills all of the power of execution onto the sovereign, which the reader may assume can lead to the corruption that Locke speaks of. Hobbes justifies this amalgamation of powers into one being by claiming that,
“The interpretation of all laws dependeth on the authority sovereign, and
the interpreters can be non those which the sovereign shall appoint. For
else, by the craft of an interpreter the law may be made to bear a sense
contrary to that of the sovereign, by which means the interpreter becomes the legislator.” (Hobbes, 174)
For Hobbes, the separation of executive powers hinders the absolute power of the sovereign and can potentially lead to the usurpation of the sovereignty. This problem potentially leads to an unstable government and a reversion back into the state of nature.
Locke’s disdain for absolute power, again, is clearly evident throughout his arguments. Locke and Hobbes develop two distinctly different personalities: Locke as the champion of liberty and natural rights, views absolute power as a state of war between the subject and the ruler. Hobbes, however, strongly advocates absolute power to control the people who will only use their liberty to destroy each other. These contrasting personalities create obvious differences in their government.
As much as Locke despises absolute power, however, he also addresses the issue of prerogative in his Second Treatise. Locke defines prerogative as “the power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it” (Second Treatise, 100). He argues that the right of prerogative allows the executive to transcend the rule of law, on due occasions, for the common good. He provides an example of the housefires of London, where the laws prohibited the executive from extinguishing them before they could burn London to the ground, and contends that the rule of prerogative must stand for the preservation of the people.
This standard seems to create a problem for reader: what would stop the executive from utilizing the power of prerogative for private means? Locke justifies this, essentially, by contending that the executive is erected for the sake of public good, and that the prince must naturally have inclinations for the good of the community: if this is not so, the people are fools by entering into a society with such a leader. He also provides examples from England, and shows that that prerogative was always at its fullest under the “wisest and best princes”.
This argument for prerogative creates a striking similarity between the Locke’s executive and Hobbes’ sovereign. If the executive has the right to transcend the law, then like the sovereign, his command would make him exempt from laws. This seems to create breeding grounds for corruption and manipulation of powers. This also seems to create an imbalance of power that is favorable to the executive, and contradicts Locke’s adamancy against absolute power. Locke’s examples that reference past events are weak: his references to past events do not automatically project themselves into the future, or guarantee that power will never instigate corruption of power. However, in the power of the people to dissolve government, one can only hope that the people will be able to recognize tyranny and rebel against it should the situation occur.
The role of religion also differs between the two constructions of society. In the Leviathan, religious orientation is entirely a matter of preference for the political despot; for Locke, however, religion must be an individual matter. He argues for the separation of church and state in his Letter Concerning Toleration, arguing that,
“The care of souls cannot belong to the Civil Magistrate, because his
power consists only in outward force; but true and saving Religion
consists in the inward persuasion of the Mind, without which nothing
can be acceptable to God - it cannot be compelled to the belief of
anything by outward force.” (Letter Concerning Toleration, 27)
This point outlines Locke’s necessity of religious toleration within society, and also highlights, again, the contrast of the government’s extent of power. Locke’s argument for religious toleration provides one more example of support for the liberty of the people against the absolute power of the sovereign.
Locke and Hobbes begin their political arguments on similar grounds: they begin with similar arguments of the state of nature, and view entrance into society as a means of escape from this state. However, from this common starting point, they differ drastically in their political ideals: while Hobbes advocates an absolutist government, Locke is the champion of limited government. Hobbes can, in a way, be recognized as the founder of liberalism, while Locke was largely influenced by his work and seems to write in response to Hobbes’ Leviathan. Locke, in turn heavily influences the founders of America: America can almost be viewed as the great “Lockean experiment”.
As America continues its advancement, laws and politics become increasingly complex, strategic, and distant from the original intent of the founders. As more constrictive laws are established by the legislature today and global issues complicate the matter further, one must ask: is our society slowly gravitating toward the despotism that Hobbes had envisioned? In modern society, Locke’s emphasis on liberty and vigilance of tyranny must never be for forgotten for the sake of its success.
Sources:
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Press: 1994.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Civil Government. Illinois, Harlan Davidson Inc: 1982.
Locke, John. Letter Concerning Toleration.. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Press: 1983. [/i]