Locke vs. Hobbes: How Differences in Governmental Goals Affect Worldviews
**This was written for a class assignment.**
The main difference between the theories of government of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes is their views on the purpose of government itself. While Hobbes sees the protection of life as the chief goal, Locke expands on that and promotes the protection of property generally. More than human nature, this difference affects their contrasting worldviews on liberty, taxes, and rebellion.
Importantly, Locke’s definition of property includes more than just land and other physical possessions; “their lives, liberties and estates” is how he defines property generally (Locke 66). This makes Locke’s ideas like that of Hobbes’ in that they both prioritize the importance of having government protect your life. However, Locke’s inclusion of liberties and physical possessions makes all the difference in splitting his worldview from that of Hobbes. Locke plainly says in Sec. 138 that “the preservation of property” is “that for which men enter into society” (73). Hobbes argues in contrast at the beginning of chapter 17 that “the finall Cause… of men” is “getting them out from that miserable condition of Warre” (Hobbes 117). War, being defined in chapter 13 as “the time Men live without a common power”, or government (88).
Hobbes defines “Liberty, in the proper sense,’’ as “freedome [sic] from chains” (147). To Hobbes, this concept is limited to self-preservation (refusing enlistment if a replacement can be found, for example), whatever “the Sovereign hath pratermitted [sic]”, and to whatever “the Sovereign has prescribed no rule“ (148, 152). Locke’s definition, while agreeing in the first and last parts of Hobbes’, differs in one key point. Locke thinks it is important to “not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man”; instead of following a Sovereign’s changing whim, Locke prioritizes order in government (Locke 17). He also defines liberty’s opposite, tyranny — “where-ever law ends… if that law be transgressed to another’s harm” (103). He expands on that, saying that a legislature loses its authority when “they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves… masters… of the lives, liberties, and fortunes of the people” (111).
These ideas contrast with Hobbes’ limited idea of liberty in several ways. As far as “arbitrary” actions of a ruler, he approves: they may reward or punish in whatever “arbitrary” manner they wish, for example (Hobbes 126). With regards to Locke’s ideas on tyranny, Hobbes doesn’t seem to see it where Locke would, as even “an Innocent Subject” can be put to death by the government, “and yet neither doe [sic] the other wrong” because the person “that so dieth had the Liberty to doe the action” they are dying for (148). In fact, outside of the liberties mentioned earlier, the concept only exists as “the Libertie of the Common-Wealth”, not of the individual, according to Hobbes (149). While Locke wanted order in government and to prevent “another’s harm”, Hobbes gives the Sovereign free reign to rule or act as they please in regard to the liberties of their subjects.
At its core, this difference comes down to contrasting goals of a government. Because Locke defines property to include livelihood, not just life itself. Therefore, he is less willing to accept the unchecked powers of authority; after all, what if their abilities infringe on you obtaining what you need to live? Hobbes, because he sees government as protecting life and life only, is more willing to give up rights and possessions so that the protection continues; as long as you are physically free, all else does not matter.
A telling example of this conflict is with respect to the taking of possessions, through taxes. To Hobbes, “the Kings word, is sufficient to take any thing from any subject, when there is need” — the key point being that “the King is the judge of that need” (144). In other words, citizens of an idealized Hobbesian commonwealth must give up however much a ruler desires without question — taxes of any amount are a worthy cost to protection. Locke fiercely disagrees with this notion, writing in section 140 that “if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on people… without such consent [from the people]… he thereby invades the fundamental law of property and subverts the end of government” (Locke 74). He adds that “they must not raise taxes on the property of the people” without their consent either (75). While Hobbes may argue for this unchecked ability to preserve the commonwealth and prevent a state of nature, Locke sees taxes run amok as destroying the commonwealth itself — preservation of property rights is as important as life itself.
The most important difference between Locke and Hobbes is their allowance for rebellion within a Commonwealth. “If an innocent man must quietly quit all that he has, for peace sake,” Locke asks, “what kind of peace [will there] be.. Which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors”? (115) Essentially, he believes that making those that are ruled step down to tyranny is absurd. It is better, Locke argues, for “rulers [to] sometimes [be] liable to be opposed, when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power” than for “people” to “be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny”. The rights of the individual are not always trumped by that of the Sovereign, according to Locke. Hobbes thinks differently, capitulating that “of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evill [sic] consequences” while arguing that the state of nature is so bad that tyranny should nevertheless be suffered through (Hobbes 144). “The estate of Man can never be without some incommodity,” he argues earlier — essentially saying that as long as you’re not dead, your ruler is doing a satisfactory job (128). In contrast with Locke allowing for rebellion if a ruler is out of control, Hobbes decries the “licentious controlling [of] the actions of their Sovereigns” that results from rebellion (150).
In fact, Hobbes only allows for a Subject to not follow a Sovereign’s word if they themselves are captured or banished, or if the Sovereign gives up his jurisdiction (151–54). There is no rebellion allowed in Hobbes’ worldview because of the pure hell that the state of nature seems to be. Why would one voluntarily rip the barrier between society and war? Locke’s answer is that the “breach of trust” between a ruler and their people “[forfeits] their power the people had put into their hands” — society does not exist, as Hobbes claims, if it has turned into tyranny, so nothing new is being broken by rebelling (Locke 111). As Locke explains at the beginning of section 222, “the reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of property… rules set as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of society, to limit [their] power…” If these rules are not followed by all members of society, including the ruling class, this is “[destruction of] the property of the people… they put themselves in a state of war”.
This statement is at the crux of the difference between Hobbes and Locke’s differences in worldview. Human nature is something the two seemingly agree on — both men see society as a necessary escape from a lawless state of nature, where people will constantly war with each other over resources, shortening everyone’s lifespan. For Locke, the resources are a key part of that equation — the protection of property rights is key to society itself, otherwise the people are in a state of war once again. For Hobbes, society simply allows you to live longer than you would in a state of nature, and any cost (including your property) is worth it. This difference in opinion leads to Hobbes more sympathetic view of rulers, which manifests itself in his preference for obedience over critique. This difference in opinion also leads to Locke’s more restrictive ideas, as he sees the protection of individual property as equally important as protecting life itself. It is this difference in government purpose, not any views the men have on human nature itself, that result in such contrasting opinions on liberty, taxes, and rebellion.
Bibliography
Hobbes, Leviathan (Cambridge: 1996, revised student edition)
Locke, Second Treatise of Government (Hackett: 1980)
