Hobbes argues that human nature is inherently selfish and violent. In the state of nature we are driven by competition, the combination of this and the fact that there is no common power to keep everyone under control means we are in a state of constant war. As a result, in order to survive in the state of nature, we would have to create a contract which would enforce laws and ensure safety. Hobbes also proposes that this social contract should give political authority to a leviathan, an individual who is the strongest amongst a group of self-interested individuals. Such leadership qualities are needed for control to keep peace and prevent continuous fighting. In such a state there are no limits to our obligations to the state. There are many problems with such an idea of a state, as demonstrated by modern day dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini who were leviathans who failed to produce a peaceful state, rather they oppressed the people in it.
The third main theory of social contract was formulated by Rousseau. His idea of the state of nature differed from Locke’s and Hobbes, as he suggested that men were neither good nor bad. Man is innocent and harmless and does not know vice or virtue, but wants to be good. The social contract is made so that a society that benefits the community can be created. We may give up our individual freedoms to create this society, although the law would be made by a legislative assembly composed of the citizens, so it would be as if the citizens were creating the law and in effect, creating a new type of freedom. In such a state there would be no limits to our political obligations. However, if an individual were to disobey the state and violate the social contract, Rousseau suggests they can be “forced to be free”, as they have consented to the state by being a part of the process that creates the law which has constrained them. The main problem with this is that it can be argued that the consent granted does not exist, if individuals were to be directly asked, they may not be prepared to grant consent, and thus constraining them would be coercion.
Proponents of anarchism criticise the idea of a social contract as they see the state a body which oppresses the people and is an unnecessary evil. Anarchists believe humans, due to their nature, would be better off with without a state. Under anarchism, there would be neither state nor an obligation to one. However, there is little evidence to suggest that humans would behave orderly under anarchy, from past experiences and study of human behaviour, it is more likely chaos would ensue.
Taking this all into account, the limits to our obligations to the state depends on how our state of nature is described. For Locke, the limits to our obligation depend on the state’s position in relation to our natural rights, whereas for Hobbes and Rousseau, although they have two completely different ideas regarding the state, they both state there is no limit to political obligation. On the other hand, it can be argued that there is no political obligation, as the consent which these theories rely on does not exist. Furthermore, the concept of a state according to anarchists is unnecessary, which means there would also be no political obligation.
