Does Hobbes Sovereign or Locke's civil government provide better protection for the citizen?

      Problems occur for Locke in a different way to that of Hobbes, which changes his opinion on mankind.  The main difference in outcome is that Locke adopts a civil government whereas Hobbes selects an absolute sovereign.   Locke’s change in opinion stems from the ‘right to punish’, which Locke lays out early on.  The problem is that everyone has the executive right to uphold the law of nature, “everyman has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again by the right he has of preserving all mankind”.  Therefore what Locke suggests is that whenever natural law is broken, everyone has the right to punish even though the transgression may not have affected him or her.   Locke described the punishing process, “by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind”, Locke however goes further than this by comparing those who break the law with wild beasts.  He says of murderers “therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts”.  I believe the problems to start when the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, for example all transgressions can result in you being killed.  This leads to irrational behaviour and pointless death.  Locke is clear though, “by the same reason may a man in the state of nature punish the lesser breaches of the law. It will be perhaps demanded with death? I answer each transgression may be punished to that degree”.  The irrationality is demonstrated when Locke agrees that man’s behaviour will cause disorder, Locke stated, “self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends”.  This comment is true questions such as, if it was your family? Or friends?  This leads for me to conclude that both thinkers arrive at a similar point where they have decided that a state of nature causes problems and they need to find a way of solving these?  Hobbes solves the problem with an absolute sovereign “in order to avoid living in a state of nature, and therefore avoiding a state of war, a sovereign had to be erected; the sovereign would be given the rights of all their subjects and be able to enforce peace.  Hobbes thought that an absolute sovereign with unlimited power; if the power was limited it would have to be limited by an even greater power”.  Locke selects a different method; he stated, “I easily grant that civil government is the proper remedy, for the inconveniences of the state of nature”.  

      Even though both thinkers discovered flaws with the state of nature they still come out with different views.  These differences are that Hobbes believes the state of nature to be awful and a return to it would be the worse thing that could happen.  On the other hand Locke recognises the problems with the state of nature, but remains that the system of government needs an outlet whereby not all rights are surrendered for example “Government was not established as government by consent in such a way that the withdrawal of consent led to the disollution of government, but instead as a trust with the people free to resist and to reconstitute government only when it violated it’s trust”.  Locke believed that God wanted mankind to unite in society, “God having made man such a creature, that in his own judgment it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society, as well as fitted him with understanding and language to continue and enjoy it.  I interpret this to mean that Locke wanted a combination of decision makers and wanted to push for a more democratic system.  Hobbes though wanted to be strong and provide security for his people, he mentioned, “getting themselves out of the miserable condition of warre”.  He believed in securing them to their contracts, and observing the laws of nature and by having an absolute sovereign the fear of punishment would tie them to that, “when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tye them by feare of punishment of their covenants and observations of those lawes of nature”.  As already mentioned Hobbes sovereign is to prevent a return to the state of nature, but for a sovereign to be legitimate the people must all give up their rights to the sovereign, “the sovereign acquires their power through the cessation of rights by their subjects”.  If everyone gives up their rights the power obtained must be invested into the hands of a select view, or obviously in Locke’s view a single person.  The cessation of these rights by everyone results in the formation of a commonwealth or a Leviathan.  This commonwealth definitely sets out to protect and provide security from firstly returning to “warre” and secondly the threat of invasion.  The transfer of rights is called the contract or covenant and this is agreed by all men when they realise they want security and to preserve their own life.  The covenant is created between the sovereign and their subjects.  They ‘invest’ their rights in him for security, although Hobbes makes it clear that the contract is between each other and the sovereign does not engage in it.   When the sovereign has received the rights of all, he will according to Hobbes have enough power and authority to carry out the wishes of the population.  

      Locke’s reasons for civil government were more complicated than that of Hobbes, firstly it was to provide an alternative from the state of nature.  Also adopting a civil government meant that ecclesiastical and civil were separate which was for the benefit of all.  Life in the state of nature was uncertain, and citizens were constantly exposed to invasion.  Locke believed that man would therefore seek what was naturally placed in you from God ‘society’.  They would therefore put themselves under government for a better life with prosperity and for their own preservation, “this makes him willing to quit a condition, which however free is full of fears and continual dangers”.  Then when a government is in place the benefits for Locke are clear there will be established laws which are known by all, which provides and indication of right and wrong and there will be an installed method for dealing with breaches of these laws.  Locke agreed that even though these laws should be clear to rational people, he accepted law and jury were essential as men are biased due to passion, “there wants to be established, settled and known law received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong”.  There needs to be an impartial judge “ there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law”.  This will then mean that the power to execute a sentence is needed; this was the main flaw with Locke’s state of nature,” there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and give it due execution”.  Locke gives due consideration to the paternal or parental powers.  If there is going to be a civil government then these need to be made clear as Locke makes parents responsible for their children until they understand the law or become of an age when they should take responsibility themselves, “paternal or parental power is nothing but that which, parents have over their children, to govern them for the children’s good, til they come to the use of reason, or a state of knowledge wherein they may be supposed capable to understand the rule, whether it be the law of nature or the municipal law of their country”.  Then finally Locke mentions political power and it’s origin, this is what the citizen’s sacrificed for the good of the nation.  They sacrifice these to the governors who provide them with rights in return for example the right to property without any external threat on it, “political power is that power which everyman having is the state of nature has given up into the hands of the society”.  Therefore the result of the two problems is that Hobbes has an absolute sovereign whereby the citizens have no rights but are protected from a return to the state of nature and foreign invaders.  On the other hand Locke has a civil government, which the citizens keep some rights and the government gives them rights for example property.  

      The key part of this comparative essay is ‘protection’ because I need to decide which protects its citizens the best.  Now I have explained the theory behind both thoughts I will assess the theories looking at protection.  For Hobbes the Sovereign was the best option when considering his perspective on the state of nature however Locke opposes this, “hence it is evident that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world is indeed inconsistent with civil society and so can be no form of civil government at all; for the end of civil society being to avoid and remedy those inconveniences of the state of nature”.  Locke then starts to assess why a sovereign is bad “for he being supposed to have all, both legislative and executive power in himself alone, there is no judge, no jury to be found no appeal lies open to anyone who may fairly and indifferently and with authority decide, and from whose decision relief and redress may expected of any injury or inconviency that may be suffered from the prince or by his order”.  Therefore Locke believes you are in as much of a state of nature with an absolute sovereign, which is why he justifies his civil government.  Therefore if having a sovereign is like the state of nature then this provides poor protection for its citizens because if the government don’t follow the majority then they cant do anything about it unlike with Locke.  Locke commented on those who support absolutism “for he that thinks absolute power purifies men’s blood and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read but the history of this, or any other age to be conceived of the contrary”.  However with Locke he provides a more democratic form of government, which clearly sets out two branches separate from each other ecclesiastical and civil government.  The civil government represent the majority “when any number of men have so consented to make one community or government they are thereby presently incorporated and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest”.  Therefore if the government don’t follow the wishes of the citizens they can act, therefore they can protect themselves better and their rights.   Hobbes however would argue that the absolute sovereign is a supreme power, a mortal God who has been called upon to ‘protect’ people from each other.  They have the necessary powers with which they can make peace and maintain it for example to punish those who transgress, make rules, protect competition, to “wart peace”, and Hobbes believed if these simple powers shared then it would result in war, therefore it’s totally based on security of the citizens.  

      To conclude it’s hard to support one argument, as both provide adequate support for their arguments.  However the prediction I made nearer the beginning that Hobbes offers security and Locke offers rights has proven to be correct.  My interpretation of protection must mean that not all power is surrendered and therefore I would argue that Locke provides the better protection.  I do however recognise if you interpret protection differently you would say Locke doesn’t offer this.  Hobbes main flaw is that the sovereign receives all right from the subjects, meaning that the citizens can become at risk from the sovereign, and the sole aim of Hobbes writing would be failed as to dissolve the sovereign he would either have to die or a return to the state of nature, which Hobbes desperately didn’t want.  However with Locke the citizens get rights, which means they are protected from the government, outside invasions, each other and a return to the state of nature.  

2,991 words

Bibliography

C.B Macpherson. Second treatise of Government

R. Tuck. Hobbes Leviathan

J. Marshall. Resistance, Religion and Responsibility

        

---