The Progression Of The State Of Nature, By John Hobbes

Hobbes is considered one of the founding scholars of liberalism because of his belief in the bodily autonomy of the individual both inside and outside the state of nature. An individual, according to Hobbes, has the absolute right to “use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgement, and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto” (321). Once in the commonwealth, an individual’s autonomy/freedom is not as expansive as it once was in the state of nature, where an individual had “a right to every thing: even to another’s body” (322). Instead, an individual only retains the right to defend themselves against

This defect entails that there is no “established, settled, 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” (378). Also, it means that there is an absence of an “indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law” (378). Finally, “in the state of nature, there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution” (378). Since the state of nature lacks an impartial way of administering justice, government is formed to fill this

Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed there are parameters that a monarch must respect or else he or she can be justifiably deposed. The monarch in the Lockean vision should only use his power “to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people” (379). If, instead, the monarch chooses “to impoverish, harass, or subdue” its citizens, their government is illegitimate and thus can be overthrown (386). Monarchs, instead of having arbitrary authority, are bound by the rule of law. This contrasts starkly with Hobbesian vision of a monarch that is the embodiment of the law and thus can do whatever he or she wants with impunity. The rule of law is independent of the monarch, for Locke says that “the king’s authority being given to him only by the law, he cannot empower anyone to act against the law, or justify him, by his commission, in so doing”