The state of nature and the social contract theories were early Liberal ideas which applied to the freedom and absolute rights of the people (that of life, liberty, and property) but also to how the authority of government impacts on, and influences, societies individuals and their rights (if at all and whether it has the right to). The State of nature was an image constructed by John Locke, and fellow political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in order to analyze what authority governments should have over its people (if any at all), and what role it should ideally play, by portraying what a society would be like without government.
The state of nature in essence is men living together according to reason (or not), without a common superior on earth[1]. Under this definition, the State of Nature can be portrayed in one of two ways. Either individuals or groups are in a state of peace and harmony and their actions are guided by reason, or it may be war, characterized by force, violence and brutish behavior. However, in neither of these portrayals is their a desire or effort for the establishment of a civil society governed by laws, as the former gives no cause for an impartial judge, and the latter, shows no possibility of supplying one[2].
Locke and Hobbes, in their writings, portray the state of nature as an immoral and un-liberal society as there is no government in effect to guarantee the rights and freedom of the people. To them, government is an essential component to the preservation of moral, civil society, and without it, anarchy would take over. Locke demonstrates this view when he defines the state of nature as one in which everyone has the executive power of the law of nature[3], in which every man has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all of his subjects whatever he pleases without the least liberty to anyone[4].
He attacks at this idea revealing his attitude towards the subject when he asserts it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self love will make men partial to themselves (and to their friends), and opposite to their enemies nothing but confusion and disorder will follow[5]. He therefore argues that governments and laws are crucial to maintain a stable, civil society in order to restrain the partiality and violence of men, claiming civil government is the pro-per remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature[6] and therefore highly necessary.
Thomas Hobbes had a similar view arguing the issue of the state of nature lay within the question of the nature of man[7]. It must be noted however that Locke does not believe that the state of nature in itself is corrupt, but that of human nature. The state of nature he argues has laws of nature[8], however are not enough to preserve the absolute rights of all individuals.
With that in mind, both he and Locke agree that human nature is greedy, selfish, and power-seeking, therefore the state of nature and consequently human society would be at best described as a war of all against all[9], which Hobbes claims would result in human existence as being solitary, poor, brutish, and short[10]. The whole notion of the State of nature was to analyse the worst case scenario which the nature of humanity can bring out, and therefore construct a moral and stable government which defends against this situation and doesnt interfere any further with human life.
Consequently both Locke and Hobbes attempted a rectification to this scenario. Hobbes suggested implementing a Leviathan (an absolute ruler) who would be elected by the people, to absorb all their rights in order to maintain stability. Locke attacked at this suggestion arguing that if society was in the state of total anarchy, how could anyone, or why would anyone come together and support the voting for one within them to higher levels of authority over all else? Locke refers to this situation as creating a lion over foxes in which the authority created and given to an individual could and would destroy lives rather than protecting them.
Locke further asserts that even the state of nature would be better than an autocracy ruled by a leviathan when he argues much better it is in the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another[11] Inevitably as Hobbes theory was anti-Liberal, it failed miserably. One of the central reasons for this, (and consequently, Lockes succeeding), lay with the time period it was in, and the ideology in which it was inevitably working against.
The time period was the late 1600s , a post-monarchial period in which the British had just overturned the monarchial government in a constitutional revolution, ousting autocratic King James II, resulting in sovereignty of Britain being given to the parliament (and consequently to the people). The people werent about to give up the liberal rights they had just gained by instating another autocratic ruler. Hobbes idea was simply un-Liberal the people (who were in essence Liberal supporters which was most of America and spreading) would never accept another autocratic regime.
Locke provided an alternative solution, known as the social contract theory which was in many respects a major improvement on Hobbes idea, and very much Liberal in ideology. The social contract is an agreement or pact between the members of society and the government, which exists to serve the interests of the people, and dictates that the individual gives up only the rights which causes and/or creates the problems that allows the state of nature to surface in human society. (i. e. the right to create ones own justice) This agreement establishes a system of law[12] which allows society to be governed adequately and justly.
Through this system, the individuals rights to life, liberty and property without any external interference, are guaranteed. The Social Contract theory also relates to biblical references as the name itself translates into covenant which was a contract between individuals on Earth, and God[13]. In the In the new testament of the Bible, there is a clear example of a social contract (covenant) where God speaks of various blessings and curses as a result of following, or not following, God’s 12 commandments/laws (which consequently allows man to live justly)[14].
Locke highlights this point to penetrate the psyche and minds of his readers using something theyre familiar to, to demonstrate the potential effectiveness and suitability of his form of government. In critically analysing Locke’s concept of the social contract and the workings of society one can acknowledge that his theories are much better than that of Hobbes’. Locke in his assertions not only defines the nature and cause of the social contract, but he argues his point stronger.
Locke’s concept of a proper government and the relationship between the government and the people is also more consistent with a social contract theory than Hobbes was. While Hobbes’ idea of a Leviathan or monarchy could work on the assumption of the absolute goodness and reliability of the autocrat, however, Locke allows for and acknowledges the reality of human nature, that as being greedy, and power-seeking, and, thus his proposal for social government is more realistic[15].
However, interestingly enough in his text, Locke makes a claim about aliens (foreign citizen in a nation to which he is not a citizen) being able to do what he would without worry for law as he cannot be punished in a foreign land. I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country; since, in reference to him, they can have no more power than what every man naturally may have over another[16]. This assertion is strange as it implies that an alien can then be free to commit crime in a foreign land and not be punished by the government of the land and its laws[17].
Regardless if its a serious offence or not, could a foreigner simply steal another mans land or property, or interfere in any other way with others rights without repercussions from the government of the land? This is a serious weakness in his arguments of the social contract as it explicitly argues that no man (regardless of origin) has a right to interfere with the life, liberty, or property of anyone else. This argument therefore seems frivolous. The Social contract theory is deeply immersed in various Liberal values, two of which he maintains are critical to a stable Liberal, democratic government.
Firstly, politics and government are formed and maintained from below. The state is created by the people, and for the people. It exists to serve their needs, and therefore it must be right, legitimate, and acceptable in the eyes of those who are subject to it[18]. If for any reason a government (or anyone else for that matter) was to encroach on the individuals rights, and break the contract, Locke maintains that it would not only be the peoples right but also duty and obligation to not only exempt themselves from the law[19], but to overthrow the government creating revolution.
This idea was the basis for the British constitutional revolution of 1688 (as mentioned prior), which ousted the monarchial ruler King James II, and gave sovereignty to the parliament, and also for the American declaration of independence[20] in which Thomas Jefferson dictated That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government[21].
As Lockes Second Treatise of Government was published two years prior, his writings had a very significant influence on the declaration of Independence in America, which became a mainstream ideology throughout the nation. The second Liberal theory of the social contract theory dictates that the state is an umpire or a neutral referee in society. The state the government through contract is not created by privileged elite attempting to repress the lower classes, but rather by the people, and thus embodies the interests of all its citizens acting as an impartial third party when individuals or groups come into conflict with one and other.
If an individual(s) breaks the terms of the contract, the state is in the right to intervene, apply the rules, enforces penalties and uphold the justice, and stability of the society. The state of nature for Locke is a dangerous thing given the reality of human nature. He maintains that it is actually not the state of nature which creates anarchy, but that of human nature. He asserts that for humans to live morally and effectively they need laws to govern and regulate their lives.
Therefore, the social contract theory works to establish a government purely to preserve the absolute rights of man, and acts as a buffer against those who would try to remove them i. e. an autocratic, or corrupt government, or even another member of society. Either way, in human society, the social contract does work, and is a valid theory to combat and prevent the state of nature where any man can be judge for himself.
