A Comparison of Two Social Contract Theorists: Locke and Hobbes Essay Example

to punish wrongdoers themselves. When asked where such people could be found, Locke answered that since all rulers of “independent” governments throughout the world are in a state of nature, it is clear that there have always been people in that state. He clarified that not every compact between men puts an end to the state of nature – only agreements to enter into one community and make one body politic achieve this result.

Despite being in a state of nature towards each other, the agreements made between a Swiss and an Indian man regarding truck deliveries in the forests of America are considered valid. The responsibility to uphold honesty and honor lies with individuals as humans rather than members of society. Sections 17, 18, and 19 of the Second Treatise document state that attempting to obtain absolute power over another person without their consent is deemed an act of war. This would grant authority to the controlling individual to use or even kill the other person at will. The desire for absolute power over someone goes against their fundamental human rights and freedom.

The act of trying to enslave me is tantamount to declaring war against my freedom, which I need for my survival. Anyone who seeks to strip another individual of their liberty in either a natural or societal setting is essentially attempting to take away everything else that person holds dear. Therefore, it's justified to employ force, even going so far as killing a thief who employs violence in the course of stealing property from me - since it's logical to assume that anyone intent on taking away freedom will not stop there once

they've gained power. Therefore, I reserve the right to treat such an individual as an adversary at war with me.

The state of Nature and the state of war differ significantly. Reason-based living without a common superior is regarded as the state of Nature, while using force or a declared plan of it against another person without seeking a solution from a common superior is considered the state of war. A peaceful life characterized by goodwill, mutual support, and preservation stands in stark contrast to one filled with hostility, malice, violence, and mutual destruction. Those who introduce aggressiveness and create a state of war are justifiably subject to being killed. Even if someone is part of society and shares citizenship with others, the lack of recourse to a common authority provides them with the right to declare war against an aggressor.

According to Hobbes, in situations where the law cannot protect one's life from immediate danger, individuals have the right to defend themselves and resort to war if necessary. The absence of an authoritative judge leaves everyone in a state of nature, where any use of force becomes an act of war even without a common judge. Hobbes believed that without a centralized power to maintain order, people are constantly at war with each other. This view aligns with the fascist ideology, where peace is actually just a guise for war. Hobbes even believed that corporations should be abolished and replaced by state control, a position similar to Hitler's dismissal of America's declaration of war as a meaningless symbol.

Peace was not just a symbol and it was not used for preparing to attack. Although Hobbes did

not have a specific plan like the communists and fascists for suppressing competition and conflicting goals, he considered their objectives desirable and popular in a good state. While Locke was the forerunner of classic liberalism in the seventeenth century, Hobbes was the predecessor of modern totalitarianism, specifically fascism. According to Hobbes, civil society, also known as private associations, corporations, and political discourse, should only exist through state power and should be quelled if acting independent of the state.

This measure, which Hobbes champions in Chapter 29 of his Leviathan, is a distinguishing feature of contemporary totalitarianism, be it communist or fascist. It should be noted that Hobbes's rationale defends fascism rather than communism. He notes that people ultimately tire of disruptive conflict and long for a stable and enduring society. In this context he identifies the harmful effects on the state when citizens embrace subversive ideologies, including the notion that everyone has the right to determine what is good and bad.

Another weakness of a Commonwealth is the excessive size of a city, which can support a large and expensive army from its own area. Additionally, there are numerous corporations that act as smaller Commonwealths within the larger one. These corporations are like worms in the belly of a natural man. Furthermore, there is the freedom to debate against absolute power by those who claim to possess political wisdom. These individuals are generally born from the lower class of society but are fueled by false doctrines and constantly interfere with the fundamental laws of the Commonwealth, causing annoyance, like little worms, called ascarides, that physicians identify.

Despite both being categorized as social contract theorists, Hobbes' theory resembles fascism

more than Locke's. This comparison is similar to claiming that Adam Smith and Karl Marx both believed in the labor theory of value, implying that they were followers of each other. Similarly, Ricardo and Marx's labor theories have as many similarities as Locke and Hobbes' social contract theories. Fascism is primarily characterized by corporatism, with some fascists arguing that fascism could be defined as corporatism rather than race theory. Additionally, Mussolini and Franco shared the perspective that corporatism stems from the concept of "one body" (corpora=body) instead of corporations.

Fascism shares the same concept as Hobbes's Leviathan and its cover, which aims to unify a group, such as a race or nation, using force if necessary. Hobbes believed in unlimited state power to eliminate conflicts and suppress non-state societies deemed harmful. The state's duty was to prevent conflicts that may arise when people are left to their own devices. However, Locke argued that government is only legitimate when it acts within the limits of an implied contract whose exact boundaries were not specified but could stretch far. Nevertheless, modern governments in the 20th century often violated this contract by acting as judges in their cause when ordinary citizens had disputes with the state (e.g., IRS), breaching the Lockean contract.

Due to its size and level of intrusion, a modern state inevitably results in significant violations of the implied contract proposed by Locke. While Locke's contract referred to a judge and Hobbes's contract referred to a master, most people experience the state as a master rather than a judge. Consequently, the modern state is more aligned with Hobbes's perspective than Locke's, although it falls short of

the absolutist government advocated by Hobbes.