Rebellion or Assimilation: Hobbes, Locke, and Freedom in the Commonwealth

Just as with Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise on Government is entirely concerned with the notions of freedom and preservation. And although differing in their opinions of the purpose and need for absolute power and monarchy, i.e. the way people interact with one another and formulate commonwealths, Hobbes and Locke agree, in principal, that a man’s first and most basic instinct is that of survival. What’s more, this survival or freedom to survive seems to be the principle means by which Locke defines his State of War. As he notes in Chapter III, “He who attempts to get another Man into his Absolute Power, does thereby put himself into a State of War with him” (279). Moreover, “No body can desire to have me in his Absolute Power, unless it be to compel me by force to that, which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my Preservation” (279). Essentially, Locke is arguing that, as he states later on, the State of War is created when one man imposes “Force, without Right, upon another Man’s person” (281). Locke, thus, continually associates the notion of the State of War with the State of Slavery. And whereas Hobbes would consider an enslaved commonwealth rightfully conquered and assimilated not only lawful but justified, I’m not sure Locke would agree. After all, for Hobbes, free will does not exist, but for Locke, free will is the cornerstone of his entire political philosophy. All the same, for both men, the principle Laws of Nature pertain to the idea of survival and the freedom to survive, even if they disagree about the best method for obtaining that survival.

Nevertheless, as we noted in class on Monday, Locke’s arguments are entirely unsatisfying. Beyond the fact that he doesn’t give us a sufficient definition and qualification of the factors contributing to a State of War as Dr. Davis pointed out, even when he does attempt to quantify his arguments, he does so in vague terms. As stated above, he defines the State of War as “Force, without Right, upon another Man’s person,” but what equates Right? Would Locke argue that there is a just and right cause for the oppression of another man’s freedoms? I hardly believe it. Altogether, Locke’s ideas fail to follow a simple and explanatory process of logical progression.