(to table of contents of FNF archives)
Outline
introduction
John Locke's State of Nature
Men Sacrifice Natural Freedom for Civil Security
The Emerging Hobbesian Vision of Man
Thomas Hobbes and the State of Nature
Hobbes' Civil Society Resembles Locke's State of Nature
Implications for a Free Nation
Can mankind live in harmony in a free society? Both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes address this in ways shedding light on the quest to establish a free nation.
Enlightenment British philosopher John Locke presents a vision of mankind in a state of nature as free, equal, and unwilling to harm another through force, fraud or other means. When I recall meeting with other libertarian academics and arm-chair intellectuals in the 1960s to speculate on the "nature of man," most envision man in terms of John Locke, and envision the free society in terms of Locke's state of nature. Rarely does anyone mention philosopher Thomas Hobbes, and his vision of man as selfish, predatory, and exploitive. Such men are assumed suited only for authoritarian society capable of restraining men's appetite, ambition, and quest for power over one another. Most 1960s libertarians—from economic entrepreneurs to "flower children"—see a Hobbesian view of man and a libertarian free society as incompatible. John Locke, on the other hand, presents a view of man entirely compatible with libertarian free society.
John Locke's State of Nature
Locke contends this state of nature requires constant vigilance against those who would violate this perfect freedom, and requires each man restrain the inappropriate actions of every other man.
Locke believes it is impossible for men to remain in a free state of nature. This natural utopia is shattered by the realization that each person cannot secure his liberty for himself and cannot punish transgressors on his own. Frightened by this realization, men enter into a binding commitment to civil society, where each submits to the will of the state and loses control over his life and his property to the needs and demands of the common good. Mankind sacrifices its freedom for the less-free majority-rule society advocated by modern political conservatives and liberals.
Most 1960s libertarians argue either one of two points. Either men remain in a state of nature free of transgressions against one another, or, in the face of transgressions, opt for a civil society with government limited to the most minimal powers necessary to prevent transgressions. These two points of view evolve into the anarchist and limited-government libertarian alternatives popular in the late 1960s.
The Emerging Hobbesian Vision of Man
In the 1990s, Locke's vision of the nature of man and the utopian state of nature, and the limited government civil society all enjoy support among libertarians, but increasing numbers of libertarians see man as more aggressive and less good natured toward his fellow man than Locke believes. Many 1990s libertarians view man more in terms of Hobbes than Locke.
This more Hobbesian view of man surfaces in a recent FNF Forum discussion. The discussion concerns the need to regulate the activities of Free Nation-supported non-governmental charitable organizations in international affairs, to prevent those organizations from doing harm or engaging in force or fraud to further their own self-interests. As a 1960s libertarian, I see no need to regulate a Free Nation-sponsored organization since the organization is staffed, funded and supported by individuals who, individually, will not harm another person through force, fraud or any other means, and who, collectively, will not use their energies to engage in force or fraud. Hobbesian individuals, on the other hand, may be willing to use force or fraud to achieve personal satisfactions, and may be willing to use a charitable organization to engage in that force or fraud.
The FNF Forum participants also discuss ways to limit ownership of personal nuclear weapons within the territory of the Free Nation. Again, I see no need for such a discussion. Locke's individuals do not seek to harm others and have no need for such weapons, so the discussion is moot if Locke's view of mankind is accepted. Hobbesian individuals, on the other hand, may seek ownership of such weapons to increase their personal power relative to other individuals, so the discussion is suddenly meaningful, assuming a Hobbesian nature of man.
By the close of the FNF Forum, I begin to question how people can both assume a Hobbesian view of man and believe in the possibility of a libertarian free society.
If 1990s libertarians take a Hobbesian view of man as selfish, self-seeking, power-seeking and willing to exploit others for his own self-interest, can this view of man be extended into either a state of nature or civil society compatible with a free society? Is it possible this more Hobbesian man can live in a free society? Locke's state of nature clearly supports the free society (while his civil society may not). Can either Hobbes' state of nature or Hobbes' civil society also support the free society?
Thomas Hobbes and the State of Nature
Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, sees man as a machine operating on the basis of cause-and-effect or stimulus-response. Man seeks to achieve a single goal—the satisfaction of human appetite. Appetite arises out of sensation as the external world presses upon human sense organs. The sights, smells, touches, and sounds of pleasurable things gives rise to appetite. Appetite gives rise to will; will precedes action.
Man acts to create and possess those things the human machine "feels" are good. Something is "good" if it satisfies appetite. Appetite is defined by each individual for himself, and the satisfaction of appetite is a personal, individual passion. Appetite is selfish, and man, striving to satisfy appetite, is also selfish. Each individual selfishly strives to satisfy his own appetite, even to the point of depriving another individual of his satisfactions. The "Right of Nature" says each man is at liberty to use his own power, as his will commands, to preserve his own life and exercise his "right to everything, even to another's body."
Each individual strives to accumulate the means to obtain satisfying, pleasurable things. These means are summarized in the term "power." Hobbes sees "a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of Power after Power, that ceaseth only in Death." The quest for power is not for power for its own sake, but for power to obtain satisfying, pleasurable things. Power is a means to obtain satisfaction.
In this selfish quest for power and quest for the creation and possession of satisfying, pleasurable things, all men are basically equal—equal in their possession of at least some power to attain success, and equal in their possession of sufficient power to deny success to others. Even those who accumulate masses of power (including those who own a personal nuclear arsenal) must compete with those who have little power and, more importantly, those with masses of power are vulnerable to those who have little power. "(T)he weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either through secret machinations or by the confederacy with others." Thus, the "Right of Nature" leads to a state of war in which men, equal in their ability to attain their own success and ability to deny others their success, destroy one another in their quest to attain satisfying pleasurable things for themselves.
The "State of Nature" is, therefore, a state in which all "men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them... In such condition there is no place for Industry; because the fruit there of is uncertain... and (men live in) continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
But, Thomas Hobbes, himself, envisions man avoiding this state of natural chaos and, instead, attaining a condition of civil society. It is possible this civil society can closely resemble a libertarian free society.
Hobbes' Civil Society Resembles Locke's State of Nature
The strongest of all men's appetites is the desire for life and safety; the strongest of all men's passions is the fear of death and injury. It is this appetite, or passion, that makes man give up his power—his personal means to achieve satisfying, pleasurable things—and live peacefully with his fellow man.
"Natural Law," or "the rule of reason," arises out of the hardships man finds in the state of nature. Man sees that "power after power" threatens his own life, and sees that personal security is the prerequisite for any creation or possession of satisfying, pleasurable things. The first "Fundamental Law of Nature" is to seek peace and live in peace, but to also be prepared to defend oneself from anyone who aggresses against the peace and against those who seek peace. For Hobbes, peace and self-defense go hand-in-hand. Hobbes sees peace as the highest form of self-defense or self-preservation; defending the peace is merely defense of this highest form of self-preservation.
The second "Fundamental Law of Nature" is that every man should be willing to give as much liberty to others in their quest for satisfying, pleasurable things as he is willing to claim for himself in his own search for satisfying, pleasurable things. Man should only seek to limit the freedom of others to the extent he wants others to limit his own freedom. In no case, however, should a level of liberty be allowed that threatens the peace.
Hobbes progresses through several steps to arrive at his second law of nature. Is it possible to interpret this second law of nature to allow for the creation of a libertarian free society?
The state of nature is a contest between individuals each seeking personal satisfactions; this contest leads to a state of war. The rule of reason leads man to see this contest (and eventual war) as a threat to each individual's survival. The first law of nature is to seek peace and to live in peace. The second law of nature implies that the contest for personal satisfactions and peace are not incompatible. To continue the contest and maintain peace, all that is necessary is for each individual to give to every other individual as much freedom to wage the contest as each individual wants for himself. This also means individuals are willing to restrict the freedom of others only to the extent each individual is willing to have his own freedom restricted.
Hobbes also contends that civil society created through these two laws must have the mutual consent and the willingness of all the people included in the civil society. Mutual consent and the participation of all people is obtained by allowing as much freedom as is desired by the most freedom-loving individual, and by restricting freedom only to the extent desired by the least restricting individual. Anything other than this will fail to achieve mutual consent and full participation of all the people included in the civil society. This agreement, or social contract, is a democratic agreement. In this agreement, individuals also establish a sovereign power to insure each individual lives up to his "covenant" to his fellow men. Assuming the individuals making the agreement are sincere, and the agreement is acceptable to all and democratically contracted, it is likely the agreement will not be violated and it is also likely there will be little need for the sovereign to legitimately exercise power over men.
It appears, therefore, the extent of freedom in any civil society is determined by the desire of the most freedom-loving person for his own freedom, and the extent of control in society is determined by the willingness of this most freedom-loving individual to submit himself to the control of others. Thus, the civil society is as libertarian and as free as the most freedom-loving of the citizens who join in the social contract to establish the civil society.
Implications for a Free Nation
Hobbesian assumptions—assumptions concerning the nature of man, the state of nature and civil society—support free society. Even if man is selfish, pleasure-seeking and willing to war with others to achieve selfish ends, a civil society composed of freedom-loving Hobbesians will be as free as the most freedom-loving among them permits, and as free as the need to preserve the peace among freedom-loving Hobbesians requires. Mankind in Hobbes' civil society may be as free as mankind in Locke's state of nature.
Based on Locke, free society is natural to man's nature; free society is lost when man deviates from his nature and transgresses upon his neighbor. Transgressions from man's free state of nature require the establishment of a less-free civil society.
Based on Hobbes, free society is a choice made by selfish people seeking to escape the war of each against all others. Once chosen, free society is lost only when the most freedom-loving person in the society chooses to relinquish freedom, or when individuals pursuing satisfying, pleasurable things threaten the peace of society. Free society is maintained, and an authoritarian alternative avoided, when man chooses freedom as one of his satisfying, pleasurable goals, or when man is willing to temper appetite with self control.
It is possible, therefore, to accept either Locke's or Hobbes' view
of the nature of man, and use either view to claim a free society can exist
within a Free Nation. This has important implications for broadening the
appeal of the Free Nation concept, to include those who accept either Locke's
or Hobbes' view of the nature of man. D
Gordon Neal Diem recalls more than 30 years of philosophical debates beginning when he first became active in the libertarian movement in 1965. He also believes writing in the present tense adds impact and immediacy.
(to
table of contents of FNF archives) (to
top of page) (to outline)