Hobbes And Locke Similarities

As we learned already in class liberal absolutism and liberal constitutionalism are two different theories that come from two great philosopher that addresses their similarities and their differences. Hobbes and Locke came to the same idea of what and how a government should be created, as we know they have the same view of the people and their necessities.

Therefore we can say that Hobbes and Locke had the same view on “natural rights” and the necessity of the people. Starting with Hobbes and his theory; he uses the word Leviathan which means "sea monster"(more likely referring to the people killing each other). I think he addresses this issue because in his of absolutism he argues that the people should have a strong tall man who has radiated

power that can protect the human being rights from being “overuse” of unnecessary power. Furthermore his argues and believe that people have “competence” as is mentioned in the readings that when it come in times of war “every man is enemy to every man, also results from •a time when men live with no other security but what their own strength and ingenuity provides them with” (Hobbes, 57). Therefore he said that if we don’t have a ruler providing the people protection we will end killing each other. As I was reading more , I figure that his ideas of having that strong dominant person to protect us, was because of his view on the English Civil War, in that he argues that the people shouldn’t have power in their own hands because then we will not survive due to the hunger for power. On the readings, we see that these theories are very different from Locke because Hobbes is more likely trying to build a government which is like a "monarchy" where they give us the safety of one sovereign person who will be “alert” of the necessities of the people.

When it comes to Locke we see a different perspective in his theory of Liberal Constitutionalism as he uses Biblical and philosophical justification. Locke uses his biblical justification when he argues the natural rights that God has given to Adam, which is “Right, Property and liberty" that are supposed to be given to the “human race” to be free. But as we see in a “state of rights” it is difficult to enjoy these terms because a monarch could come and simply like that the people could lose their "freedom". That’s where the idea of a government of Locke comes where this term can be limited by laws and citizens can “recreate” and “revert” these rights for the people to enjoy. As in the readings mention, liberal constitutionalism should have a government that the “legislative and executive powers are in distinct hands (as they are in all moderated monarchies and well-formed governments), the good of the society requires that various things should be left to the discretion of the executive” (Locke, 53). To conclude with Locke idea of having this type of government is that the citizen could choose their people to be their “leaders” to protect them at every moment, but the people ruling could not change the society opinion because that is like calling back a monarchy.

In a simple way if we put these two theories in a contrast the easiest way to know their similarities and their difference is that Hobbes and Locke did have the same view on people rights and of course knew about the necessities, including the “state of nature” and “social contract” of how a government is established.

In the difference is that for Hobbes the creation of a government is to protect ourselves, while Locke said to protect the people natural rights. While they also disagree in the government power where Locke agree and believe that the power could be limited while Hobbes doesn’t, in other words, Hobbes believes in a monarchy where people basically do not have the freedom, while Locke believes we can throw the government away if we don’t like

it.

Going into further thinking of this two theories in class the day that they were discussed, and later on mentioning Washington, I think that in the American presidency use both theories in a balanced method.

Ways I can think and understand these two theories in a better way can be weird but for me is that when Washington came he created this “perfect image “ of the president that got the attention and everyone liked him and approved him because of his ideas and the things he achieved for the people. They can count as liberal constitutionalism as we see that he was protecting the people rights; now in my way of understating liberal absolutism is that I think of when it was time for Washington to leave the presidency he said like “he was tired” it was because if he stayed a thirds term it could “bring” a “monarch” government, just like the liberal absolutism, where it is only one person having the power, and that what he was really doing was following the constitution. However, it is not like we live in a liberal constitutionalism completely because we also can see that we have some of the liberal absolutism. An example of this is Jefferson; of how he was agreeing to the constitution and caring for the necessities of the people, just to an extent where he decided to not listen to the congress about certain things. In concluding with this I think I agree with what these presidents did because like that we can have a balanced government that can beneficiate the

people.