Hobbes -The Extent of the Sovereign's Power
p. 233 they covenant with one another “…to appoint one man, or assembly of men to bear their person; and even one to own and scknowledge himself to be the author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person, shall act or sauce to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety”
The sovereign cannot be guilty of any breach of covenant, and so nothing that he does can be a basis for defection by his subjects. Covenanting is a one way street. Once in there is no way back.
The sovereign's powers can be set out as follows:
1. The subjects cannot change the form of government. (They are bound by their original agreement.)
2. Sovereign power cannot be forfeited (i.e. involuntarily): no subject can claim to be freed from subjection because of some action of the sovereign. p. 235
3. No party to the agreement to establish the sovereign can escape the implications of the agreement, because the outcome was not to his liking. To be party to the agreement is to be bound by the outcome.
4. The sovereign's actions cannot be an injustice to the subjects, because his actions are their actions (by authorization), and it is impossible to do oneself an injustice. (The sovereign can do "iniquity" - moral evil - but not injustice.)
5. The sovereign cannot be punished by the subjects for any of his actions. (So regicide is forbidden; and the execution of Charles I thus condemned.)
6. The sovereign is sole judge of what is necessary for peace and defence
7. The sovereign has the power of passing laws concerning property, and thus of specifying what justice requires of each subject.
8. The sovereign has the sole power to establish judiciaries, and so of settling all controversies.
9. The sovereign has the right to make war or peace with other nations, according to his own judgment.
10. The sovereign has the right to choose his own advisors and ministers.
Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?
Leviathan written 1651. Time of the English Civil War
30 years war in Central Europe 1618-48 1/3 of population of Germany died.
Peace of Westphalia 1648
John Locke (1632-1704) Two Treatises 1680
Locke’s Treatises can be understood as a qualified rehabilitation of Aristotle, pace Hobbe’s virulent anti-Aristotelian polemic.
Aristotle thinks that the human being is naturally apt to live in a political community, primarily because
1. the final end of human beings (the good life, eudaimonia) lies in his social existence or existence in a political community (polis).
2. Human beings have (practical) reason by which their interest/advantage and justice (the common good) can be discerned and acted upon.
Hobbes denies that human beings are naturally sociable, even though their good ultimately lies in social existence in civil society. For they are not naturally rational, but rather by nature governed by passion and are more like machines blindly driven to pursue their self-preservation.
Locke on the State of Nature
Locke thinks that human beings are naturally governed by reason, and hence are naturally sociable, so the state of nature is lawful, peaceful
Every human being is free in the state of nature.
Every human being is equal in the state of nature. (Not in Hobbes’ sense.)
Everyone has rights to property (sufficient for their preservation) in the state of nature.
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone: And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no-one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” 2nd T ch. II, p.247
Everyone has the “executive powers of the laws of nature” EPLN. Everyone is judge, jury and policeman in their own case and in any case.
2nd t ch II p.248. “[E]very man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or, where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on anyone, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in this case, and upon this ground every man hath the right to punish the offender, and be the executioner of the law of nature.”
EPLN = 2 parts
1. Rights of punishment – for restraint, and for deterring others (belong to anyone)
2. Rights of reparation – to make good the injury (belong only to the injured party)
Locke on the State of War
Ch. III p. 250 “He who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it…To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.”
"Want of a common judge puts all men in a state of nature; force without right upon a man's person makes a state of war, both where there is and is not a common judge." (270-1) The two states are as far removed as possible: the state of nature is a condition of peace.
Hobbes SofN = Warre = the very possibility of which is inconsistent with civil society.
Locke SofN not= war, and Sof N being peaceful and lawful is consistent with civil society. Civil Society just a better, more convenient version of Sof N.
Of Political or Civil Society
Civil society comes about when everyone pools their EPLN and lends it to a designated authority
Locke’s Definition of Political (civil) Society
“there and there only is a political society, where every one of the members hath quitted his natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that excludes him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it.” Ch. VIII p. 257
“Whenever any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit everyone his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is political, or civil society.” “Hereby he authorizes the society, or, which is all one, the legislative thereof to make laws for him, as the public good of the society shall require” Ch. VIII p. 257
NB 1. This is all civil society is, and as such it is inconsistent with “absolute monarchy” p. 256
NB2. Chief end of society is “the preservation of property” (a/c Locke one has a property one one’s own person.)
Civil society of government exists to solve these 3 problems in State of nature and for no other reason. 2nd T, ch. XI p. 259
1. There wants an established settled and known law received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong and the common measure to decide all controversies between them.
2. In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law.
3. In the state of nature, there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution.
1. The legislative Congress House of Representative + Senate
2. The judiciary Supreme court
3. The executive White House (+ Pentagon)
According to Locke any State which goes beyond these three functions makes itself an enemy of the people and can be legitimately destroyed. A. John Simmons On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society Princeton, Princeton U P, 1994.
David Hume ‘Of The Original Contract’
“They assert, not only that government in its earliest infancy arose from consent, or the voluntary combination of the people; but also, that even at present, when it has attained its full maturity, it rests on no other foundation. They affirm, that all men are still born equal, and owe allegiance to no prince or government, unless bound by the obligation and sanction of a promise. And as no man, without some equivalent, would forego the advantages of his native liberty, and subject himself to the will of another; this promise is always understood to be conditional, and imposes on him no obligation, unless he meets with justice and protection of his sovereign. These advantages the sovereign promises him in return; and if he fails in the execution, he has broke, on his side, the articles of engagement, and had thereby freed his subject from all obligations to allegiance. Such, according to these philosophers, is the foundation of authority in every government; and such the right of resistance, possest by every subject.”
On the edge of anarchy? Or on the edge of litigation?
The Doctrine of Tacit Consent
“And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to everyone of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it.” P. 257
Express consent is given performatively – like a promise. Was it ever really given? How do we Know? If so, why should we be bound by a promise made by our ancestors?
Locke’s answer = tacit consent.
“To this I say, that every man, that has any possessions, or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as anyone under it; whether this is his possession be of land, to him and his heris for ever, or a longing only for a week; or whether it be barely traveling freely on the highway…” p. 258
On the edge of anrchy? Or on the edge of mass exodus?
David Hume
“Should it be said , that by living under the dominion of a prince, which one might leave, every individual has given tacit consent to his authority, and promised him obedience; it may be answered, That such implied consent can only take place when a man imagines, that the matter depends on his choice. But where he thinks (as all mankind do who are born under established governments) that by his birth he owes allegiance to a certain prince or government; it would be absurd to infer a consent or choice, which he expressly, in this case renounces and abjures.” p.257.
3