Hobbes vs. Locke vs. Rousseau

[Lardlad95]

According to Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and to a lesser extent Rawls, something exists known as the social contract. This being either an agreement between a people and it's government, or an agreement between people to abide by the laws and government established in a society, depending on who you ask.

All three of the philosophers agreed that there was some type of state of nature, and each had a specific view of the social contract. Here is a brief overview, or rather a glance at their views.

Hobbes: "And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Long story short, man is naturally brutish. If there was no government, we'd all be struggling against each other, a war of every man against every man. Thus we need a soveriegn ruler to keep us in line. Even if the government is arbitrary, or harsh, it's better than what we'd have if there was no government.

Locke: Locke believed that we only have posession of our own bodies, unless however we fact in labor, then what we use to improve the world and the results there of become our property.Though to be fair he also stated that you only have a right to aquire up until necessity. THus he asserts that the government has 1 main objective protect private property, legislatiing laws regarding the accuasition, perservation, etc. of private property. The form of government is not important except for the fact that it must be a reflection of the people's wishes. Ideally it should be unanimous...however he suggests majority rule for practical purposes.

Locke also asserts that the state of nature is exceedingly unstable. THus men join into a social contract to ensure no one infringes upon other's natural rights. And this is where his theory on government falls into place.


Rousseau: According to Rousseau It's civilization that disguises the state of nature, it's corruptive influence ruins us. Humans that are naturally going to be cooperative (if there is no society) but this cooperation gives rise to society. Or really it's teh concern for private property that does it.

Since humans are naturally free, they trade this total independence for civil liberties provided by the state. Of course this sacrafice must take place in a way that garuantees good for the whole.

Rousseau's main theory involved the general will. That the soveriegn legislative body must be a reflection of the general will and nothing more. It can not take on the job of ceating legisation on it's own. Since the general will can only be expressed by those being goverened, Rousseau believes that the idea of A representative legilative body is in it's self an illusion.



And there is an oversimplified account of the three major social contract theorists. I'm not going to go over rawls mainly because...I'm sick and I don't feel like it. If anyone wants to do so then go right ahead.

Now onto the topic

1. What is the State of nature

2. What is your interpretation of the social contract?

3. Analyze the three theories.

4. Any other thing you want to point out

Also to recap

Hobbes: you are all naturally bad people, and you need a soverieng ruler to whip you into shape. Even if you don't agree with teh government, tough nuggets because it's better than anarchy.

Locke: Private property is teh most important thing, even though you really only should get what you need. The main purpose of the govt. is to protect private property

Rousseau: Humans naturally cooperative, the want for property screws them up. General will should rule society

RAWLS:....fuck it

[perception]

Good thread.

You're a little off though. Rousseau didn't necessarily believe that men are naturally cooperative, just that they tend to leave each other alone. While Hobbes thought of the state of nature as all out, constant fear and fighting, Rousseau thought of it as lazy, boring, and uneventful. You're right about private property giving rise to society - basically those who were able to acquire a lot of resources in the state of nature needed a way to protect these resources, so they convinced everyone else that setting up a polity would benefit all, when it really benefitted a few (not much has changed).

I don't really believe there ever was a 'state of nature', I believe society evolved as the human race evolved, as human beings are social animals. I believe that the invention of language had a lot to do with it, though.

As for the social contract - the state's reason for existing is to serve the needs of the citizens, if it ceases to do this the citizens have a right to abolish it.

[Lardlad95]

Good thread.

Thanks, I love political philosophy




You're a little off though. Rousseau didn't necessarily believe that men are naturally cooperative, just that they tend to leave each other alone. While Hobbes thought of the state of nature as all out, constant fear and fighting, Rousseau thought of it as lazy, boring, and uneventful. You're right about private property giving rise to society - basically those who were able to acquire a lot of resources in the state of nature needed a way to protect these resources, so they convinced everyone else that setting up a polity would benefit all, when it really benefitted a few (not much has changed).

I call someone leaving me tthe hell alone cooperative...but you are right, I oversimplified that a little too much.

In regards to private property, private property has always existed in some form or another. Animals have "property" it's not like thhey own watches or anything, but their territory, caves, nests, trees, etc. can be seen as a form of property. I think the difference is that humans, having the intelects that we do we able to come up with more types of property. Our tools and posessions were soon included. Then the neolithic revolution came and from then on humans were fucked. The rise of agriculture meant we had time to stay in the same place and develop more and more things...including villages and cities and the like. So really, lets blame all this shit on agriculture :). Though of course "government' or a primitive form of it had always existed. Though really it should just be called leadership.


I don't really believe there ever was a 'state of nature', I believe society evolved as the human race evolved, as human beings are social animals. I believe that the invention of language had a lot to do with it, though.

Then don't think of the state of nature in refference to early humans. What do you think it would be in regards to humans without a society. Pretend you are an objective observer, a Deist god if you will, and you just stuck 30 humans (women men, children, etc.) on an island. They have no knowledge of things. How would they behave?

A
s for the social contract - the state's reason for existing is to serve the needs of the citizens, if it ceases to do this the citizens have a right to abolish it.

But the citizens don't always make the right choices. Case in point slavery and segregation. Both of those things reflected the opinions of the people. What do you do then?

[perception]

In regards to private property, private property has always existed in some form or another. Animals have "property" it's not like thhey own watches or anything, but their territory, caves, nests, trees, etc. can be seen as a form of property. I think the difference is that humans, having the intelects that we do we able to come up with more types of property. Our tools and posessions were soon included. Then the neolithic revolution came and from then on humans were fucked. The rise of agriculture meant we had time to stay in the same place and develop more and more things...including villages and cities and the like. So really, lets blame all this shit on agriculture smile.gif. Though of course "government' or a primitive form of it had always existed. Though really it should just be called leadership.


That's your opinion but not Rousseau's. What you need to distinguish between the three types of property rights: right of first ownership, right of force, and proprietary or legal right. The first two have always existed - I am sitting in this chair, so I own it; you throw me out of the chair and sit in it, now you own it. But proprietary rights codified private property, (and to borrow from Kant) made it possible to own something you weren't actually physically in possession of. Private property isn't about possession, it's about ownership. Rousseau claims that the greatest crime ever committed against humanity was when the first man planted a stake in the ground and said this piece of land is mine and only mine, and convinced the rest of the human race to believe him. Rousseau says that you to own anything you need the unanimous consent of all of mankind, since you are depriving everyone else of it's use. This comes from Rousseau's Second Discourse.



Then don't think of the state of nature in refference to early humans. What do you think it would be in regards to humans without a society. Pretend you are an objective observer, a Deist god if you will, and you just stuck 30 humans (women men, children, etc.) on an island. They have no knowledge of things. How would they behave?

If they had the ability to communicate, I believe some kind of societal structure would evolve. It would be based on force, however, because in the absence of a legal system violence is the only legitimate means of compulsion.


But the citizens don't always make the right choices. Case in point slavery and segregation. Both of those things reflected the opinions of the people. What do you do then?

That's the problem with the 'general will' argument. I don't believe that the general will should be used to govern, since I don't believe there is such a thing. Like I said the citizens (not as a mass, but individually) have a right to rebel against a state which acts contratry to their interests. The slave has a right to hang his master, the black Americans of the 60's and the black South Africans of the 90's had a right to use force to destroy the systems of segregation of apartheid. And if this system was beneficial to whites, they had an inherent right to fight to protect it.

[Lardlad95]

That's your opinion but not Rousseau's. What you need to distinguish between the three types of property rights: right of first ownership, right of force, and proprietary or legal right. The first two have always existed - I am sitting in this chair, so I own it; you throw me out of the chair and sit in it, now you own it. But proprietary rights codified private property, (and to borrow from Kant) made it possible to own something you weren't actually physically in possession of. Private property isn't about possession, it's about ownership. Rousseau claims that the greatest crime ever committed against humanity was when the first man planted a stake in the ground and said this piece of land is mine and only mine, and convinced the rest of the human race to believe him. Rousseau says that you to own anything you need the unanimous consent of all of mankind, since you are depriving everyone else of it's use. This comes from Rousseau's Second Discourse.

I'd tend to agree with this assertion. Possesion has become irrelevant due to the law. I can't aqquire I buisness by simply kicking the CEO out of the building. Instead I'd have to aquire it through legal means. All I was simply saying was that since humans are able to develop more and more items and things, that the ideas of property had to change.

After the neolithic revolution ideas concerning property had to change. If I stole your axe then it was mine, and there was very little you could do to prove it. However if I were to walk into your farm and make you leave, people would notice that my land had grown bigger over night and you were in the poor house. Then teh local authorities would have to intervene. New ideas about property became necassary.


If they had the ability to communicate, I believe some kind of societal structure would evolve. It would be based on force, however, because in the absence of a legal system violence is the only legitimate means of compulsion.


Surely this wouldn't be permanent. After the biggest baddest man on the block gained control he'd want to find some way to solidify his power. No one wants to continually watch his back. So I"m fairly sure some form of primitive monarchy would form, especially if the strongest proved to be a good leader. If not he is killed and a new one takes his place. THis leader will probably learn from the last's mistakes, lest he fall into the same trap.

Of course there is another route. Since I don't necassarily believe that humans are naturally greedy, there is a possibility that they could form a commune. Especially if they all need each other in order to survive. The problem is that once things become easy then people will aqquire more goods than necassary and people may get greedy. Should they always have to struggle then things could remain equal. Of course humans are naturally resourceful so I doubt they'll be struggling for long.

When marx said all history is that of class struggle he was right. Even if it starts off communally then it will break down into a society that gradually works towards the begginging of the cycle again.

Which is giving me an interesting idea...what if society runs in a cycle. Afte4r communism it reverts back to the beginning stages and teh process starts over again?


That's the problem with the 'general will' argument. I don't believe that the general will should be used to govern, since I don't believe there is such a thing. Like I said the citizens (not as a mass, but individually) have a right to rebel against a state which acts contratry to their interests. The slave has a right to hang his master, the black Americans of the 60's and the black South Africans of the 90's had a right to use force to destroy the systems of segregation of apartheid. And if this system was beneficial to whites, they had an inherent right to fight to protect it.

But then society is in continual turmoil. Faction against faction. No society can ever be perfectly unified. Communists will struggle aggainst capitalism, capitalists against communism. How do you form a society where there will be no uprising. Also if there is no general will, how do you govern?

[perception]

I'd tend to agree with this assertion. Possesion has become irrelevant due to the law. I can't aqquire I buisness by simply kicking the CEO out of the building. Instead I'd have to aquire it through legal means. All I was simply saying was that since humans are able to develop more and more items and things, that the ideas of property had to change.

After the neolithic revolution ideas concerning property had to change. If I stole your axe then it was mine, and there was very little you could do to prove it. However if I were to walk into your farm and make you leave, people would notice that my land had grown bigger over night and you were in the poor house. Then teh local authorities would have to intervene. New ideas about property became necassary.

That's the idea. That's why Rousseau saw society as evolving simply as a means to protect property rights.


Surely this wouldn't be permanent. After the biggest baddest man on the block gained control he'd want to find some way to solidify his power. No one wants to continually watch his back. So I"m fairly sure some form of primitive monarchy would form, especially if the strongest proved to be a good leader. If not he is killed and a new one takes his place. THis leader will probably learn from the last's mistakes, lest he fall into the same trap.


Machiavelli pioneered the notion that force is the only legitimate claim to power in the absence of government. If there was no government, no society even, the only law is that might makes right. After, say, the strongest individual on that hypothetical island establishes himself as the law of the land, he would be able to take steps to establish a legal structure which would protect his power. In other words, before the 'founding' of the societal structure, force is the only legitimate tool of ruling, but after the founding, there is a legal structure and force becomes illegitimate (for averyone except the state).



Of course there is another route. Since I don't necassarily believe that humans are naturally greedy, there is a possibility that they could form a commune. Especially if they all need each other in order to survive. The problem is that once things become easy then people will aqquire more goods than necassary and people may get greedy. Should they always have to struggle then things could remain equal. Of course humans are naturally resourceful so I doubt they'll be struggling for long.

When marx said all history is that of class struggle he was right. Even if it starts off communally then it will break down into a society that gradually works towards the begginging of the cycle again.

Which is giving me an interesting idea...what if society runs in a cycle. Afte4r communism it reverts back to the beginning stages and teh process starts over again?


see I've got a degree in economics so I have to approach it from an incentive-based point of view: If they all decide to set up a commune and live collectively, there are no firmly established rules or laws or punishments set up before the fact. Everyone in that situation would have an incentive to cheat, to either a) set up the laws as to put themself in a position of privilege or b) make a grab for power. Simply put, it's not a matter of greed: in the absence of an overarching authority(think Hobbes' Leviathan), if you don't make a grab for power, somebody else will and you will be subjected. It's not a matter of wanting to be in power, but a matter of not wanting to be subjected that would have people making moves for the 'throne' in the absence of a system of punishment.

Rousseau also argued that man has a tendency to want to dominate others. Man is not content with being equal - he would even sacrifice some of his own liberty for the chance to be in a position to dominate. Which is why hierarchichal systems, such as capitalism and feudalism, are so damn stable. Think about your workplace: tell me you don't know one prick who kisses the manager's ass all day just so he can be a shift supervisor or some other petty position of power and boss the workers around.



But then society is in continual turmoil. Faction against faction. No society can ever be perfectly unified. Communists will struggle aggainst capitalism, capitalists against communism. How do you form a society where there will be no uprising. Also if there is no general will, how do you govern?

That's why Marx said that history is the story of continual conflict between opposing classes. The only way to form a society which is relatively free of turmoil is to incorporate all opposing parties into the system somehow. It doesn't need to be based on 'general will', just democratic. Not 'democratic' like modern western 'democracies', but truly democratic where each individual has an equal voice, with a constitution to protect the general character of the system.

[dark fairy]

goddamn i haven't had a talk about this for a while...
a lot of presidents and people like that have taken alot of their "takes" on things form lock and hobbes... i can find something to agree with in both of them... but this would invold more thinking so i'll get back to you on this... :unsure:

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by dark [email protected] 12 2004, 05:04 AM
goddamn i haven't had a talk about this for a while...
a lot of presidents and people like that have taken alot of their "takes" on things form lock and hobbes... i can find something to agree with in both of them... but this would invold more thinking so i'll get back to you on this... :unsure:
take your time..and to Perception i'll get to your post like tomorrow, I'm tired and rather lazy

[Lardlad95]

up

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:45 PM
Then don't think of the state of nature in refference to early humans. What do you think it would be in regards to humans without a society. Pretend you are an objective observer, a Deist god if you will, and you just stuck 30 humans (women men, children, etc.) on an island. They have no knowledge of things. How would they behave?



Yeah but how exactly does this reflect the natural state of humanity? Surely, any chaos that would ensue would be the result of already learnt principals surrounding government i.e.: they would be used to civil society and government. When existing government's collapse, violence and chaos is usually the result. This is not a 'natural' condition.

The 'state of nature' is a flawed concept.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I would agree with the last post, but perhaps from a different slant. State of nature may have occurred in the past, but that was a result of having never had government. A second state of nature would be different as a result of having been led, however it would not be the choas taht happened in the first instance. I think that is only after what people hve had to endure taht they could be co-operative without rule.

[percept¡on]

The 'state of nature' is a theoretical concept used to describe society without (before the invention of) government.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by bombeverything+May 7 2004, 03:11 AM--> (bombeverything @ May 7 2004, 03:11 AM)
[email protected] 9 2004, 05:45 PM
Then don't think of the state of nature in refference to early humans. What do you think it would be in regards to humans without a society. Pretend you are an objective observer, a Deist god if you will, and you just stuck 30 humans (women men, children, etc.) on an island. They have no knowledge of things. How would they behave?



Yeah but how exactly does this reflect the natural state of humanity? Surely, any chaos that would ensue would be the result of already learnt principals surrounding government i.e.: they would be used to civil society and government. When existing government's collapse, violence and chaos is usually the result. This is not a 'natural' condition.

The 'state of nature' is a flawed concept. [/b]
But in the situation they have no learnt principles. They have the same amount of knowledge as a 1 year old. Of course they have the ability to learn and the intellegence of a normal adult, but they know nothing of society or anything else for that matter