Why do governments exist? In this paper, I will argue that governments exist because they are the only mechanisms that can be formed to ensure and enforce equal opportunity among men. It’s absolutely crucial to understand where equality among men stems from and why we value it; from there we can garner greater understanding of why the formation of a government is a necessary condition of coming closer to equality. I will structure this paper as follows. First, I will establish the importance and relevancy of equality as a desired value by exploring how they differ and function within both Locke and Hobbes state of nature. Second, I will explain the logical construction of government with specific attention to the value of equality in both Hobbes and Locke account. Finally, I will conclude whether Locke or Hobbes best ensures and enforces equal opportunity among men by comparing their variations of equality within government.
We, as human beings, hold certain personal desirable standards in which we strive to meet. However, what we learn from human interaction that is not instilled within the confines of human nature is the limitations of achieving said desirable standards, in which we deduce the value of equality. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke develop a state of nature in which there no government in order to infer reasons for government.
Hobbes’ attention to the subject of equality is held as a substandard to the physically overriding natural right to protect life, because life is a precondition to even strive to achieve equality. Hobbes asserts that man is naturally equal, “Nature hath men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that… the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest….” (Pg. 74 p.1) Within the state of nature, man is equal in capability, and in turn status; however, this equality does not guarantee equal protection of man from each other nor equally assured peace.
Locke’s account of equality is more of a primary issue in comparison to Hobbes paramount conception of life. Equality is a constant in Locke’s political theory as is in Hobbes. However, they differ as existing objects insofar as Locke’s state of nature is “A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another… born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another….” (Pg. 8 p. 2) In Locke’s state of nature one is not so quick to draw his sword against another; it is rather a place of equal respect towards each other.
Locke and Hobbes question why we need to form a government if we already have equality in the state of nature. While the state of nature’s equality in both Locke and Hobbes account agree that man is naturally equal, in the stage of man’s interaction, it puts one man at a higher status than the other after settling a dispute. As a result, this creates inequality in the state of action as well as the outcomes of the state of interaction. From natural equality, stems man-made unnatural inequality when man interacts with one another in the state of nature.
From the state of nature, where equality is a virtue of a mere means to an unequal ends, both Locke and Hobbes construct their differing variations of government. Hobbes formulates a society based on the premise of a covenant, in a one step process of generating a covenant entailing equally giving up all our rights to an individual sovereign to receive benefits of protection and safety. By attempting to preserve the wellbeing of all, by equal protection, we have also cut the connection of man’s natural equal social status from the unequal power relations between the sovereign and his residents. While, the statuses of the sovereign and its residents are unequal, the residents live under the sovereign as equals. Hobbes describes the state of equality among residents under the sovereign, “If natures therefore have made men equal, that equality is to be acknowledged… every man acknowledges another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.” () Equality is preserved through one “unequal” rather than many “unequals” in the state of nature.
The issue of equal opportunity versus equal statuses of man is exemplified when Hobbes further elaborates on the natural law of equity and proportionality within the Leviathan. Hobbes explains “The observance of this law, from the equal distribution to each man of that which in reason belonged to him, is called equity, and (as I have said before) distributive justice….” () The sovereign is to ensure proportionality and equality of distribution of goods at least to the bare minimum of survival of his residents. This is yet again, equality of social statuses of man and opportunity only under the sovereign, and in Hobbes eyes, the only justifiable form of equality that can exist in his form of absolutist monarchical government.
Hobbes take on property is included in his principle of equity, and distribution of goods, which means the sovereign, decides property distribution and property rights. This is very contrary to Locke’s labor theory of value to evaluate property itself. Locke’s labor theory of value entails labor adding an aspect of possession to the object created or worked on. From possession, we grant access to individualistic desire to declare possession, which extends to bartering and in turn eventual creation of universally indispensible currency, like gold or money. Locke openly endorses the inequality of man in terms of social status through disproportionate attainment of goods by sanctioning the premise of equal opportunity among men to work for and value his share.
From Locke’s state of nature, we form a society on the basis of achieving equality, in terms of fair deliberation to settle disputes. Locke’s state of nature clearly claims that equality is sustained within the very nature of man. However, Locke further explains that this equality cannot be sustained as when man quarrels with one another in dispute, disproportionate punishment arises, and as a result inequality among statuses of men created. Locke explicitly states “That in the state of nature everyone has the executive power of the law of nature… self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends: and on the other side, that ill nature, passion and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others….” () Locke’s solution lies in the formation of civil society and government. Locke’s social contract is contingent upon the condition of giving up your right to enforce the law of nature, this forms civil society, and from there that right transfers to a majority rule to delegate a government. Locke elaborates “To avoid this state of war… where there is no authority to decide between the contenders is one great reason of men’s putting themselves into society… controversy of decided by that power….” () The government acts as the neutral arbiter to settle disputes among the rest of the residents of society ensuring fair and equal treatment among all residents.
While Hobbes doesn’t implement equality within the power relation of his governmental structure, Locke tries to apply fairer conditions upon governmental control over its residents. Locke’s social contract includes providing residents the right to rebel if they experience ongoing patterns of abuse, confirmed through “for the end of government being the good of the community… reserved that ultimate determination to themselves which belongs to all mankind….” () Locke is suggesting that citizens can provide checks on the power of the government through allowing the residents to directly the state of government itself, rather than not have checks on powers of coercive authority in Hobbes social contract theory. Locke answers back the problem of unequal power relations between residents and government authority with reciprocating power capability to both the government and its respective residents.
Unfortunately, Locke’s decision making calculus of majority rule is just as skewed in terms of preserving equality as Hobbes absolute authoritarian rule decision calculus. By a majority rule method of making decisions, we disregard the minority of the decision, violating their equal stance in power relations. Through Hobbes method of the sovereign deliberating for the population, it unequally places power to one individual. Hobbes promptly addresses this issue of inequality by claiming that through consenting to the sovereign, we have made our own will, the sovereigns will, effectively making the sovereigns power equally the residents’ power.
While we can presume that equality is a very much important and stressed value in governmental structure and functionality according to both Locke and Hobbes. It can be concluded that Locke makes more effort to open up equal opportunity among residents. Locke proposes that citizens can check the power of their respective government, while Hobbes strictly opposes the idea of challenging the authorial power of the sovereign. Hobbes is more focused in the equal status of individual in government, rather than equal opportunity. Hence, Locke’s social contract theory provides answers to the inequality of opportunity raised in Hobbes version of government, in his equality of power relations.
Pingback: Josh
Pingback: eegger
Pingback: Olivia Long