HOBBES AND LOCKE ON THE STATE
Onyeukwu Uchechukwu
Department of Political and
Administrative Studies,
University of Port Harcourt, Port
Harcourt, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
A fundamental question
which has continued to occupy eminent space in political science is; what is
the state? Political thinkers are not
united on one answer; whether it is on the origin of the state, the nature of
the state or the end for which the state is established. The result of
differences in opinion about what the state should be is that there are
countless theories of the state. This paper examines how Hobbes and Locke
conceptualise the state. It compares and contrasts the central elements of the
Hobbesian and Lockean states. Using the comparative approach, the work finds
that Hobbes and Locke agree that the state is the result of an agreement by
humans who hitherto lived in a state of nature. It identifies that although
Hobbes prefers an absolute state and Locke chooses a minimal state, their
doctrines suggest that the end of the state, inter alia, is to ensure peace and
security of lives and property.
Key
Words: Hobbes, Locke, Absolute, Minimal, State
INTRODUCTION
Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke are social contract theorists. They recognise that before
men agreed to govern themselves, they existed in a state of nature. The state
of nature is that condition humans were in before the emergence of government.
The history of the world is thus divided into two periods – the period before
the state and the period after. Men realised that it was by refraining from
harming others that their own lives were safe. They agreed to jointly set up a
government – of one person or group of persons. Everybody submitted his right
of self-preservation to the general will for protection.
Hobbes’s
state of nature is that of constant war of every man against every man. In this
state, the laws of the jungle prevail, where only the fittest survive. Humans
are naturally competitive and differ in their wants, needs, desires and
inclinations. And because the desires of men are insatiable and the resources
are limited, contradictions and war arise among them. This condition is made
manifest due to the absence of a common power to keep men in awe (Hobbes,
1985).
Comments
Post a Comment