Hobbes and Locke Revisited: The Foundations of the Modern Liberal State, Part V - Page 2

That’s the bottom line of any social contract-based political theory; and it concerns the hypothetical transfer of the appropriate rights (mostly those having to do with protecting oneself, to include one’s property) to another, which transfer creates obligation to the sovereign.

As stated, Hobbes’ was an extreme version. Ms Balibar puts it thus:

. . . there are essential reasons why Hobbes would absolutely refuse the notion of “self-ownership” as a political notion – since it would establish competing authorities and obligations5 – and therefore also as a philosophical or anthropological one.

We see it was Locke therefore, not Hobbes, who had allowed for what we recognize today as factional and confrontantional politics, along with the remote possibility of overthrowing the government, in the event the government (for one reason or another) doesn't deliver. No wonder it was Locke rather than Hobbes, who had become the presumptive father of the liberal theory: it stands to reason that even the ruling class, not unlike the nobility of old, would like to reserve for itself the ultimate right to depose the sovereign (if and when need be).

But popular opinion be damned, and general sentiment and all appearances to the contrary, too, each of which being a poor index of the underlying reality. Hobbes may have been a purist compared to Locke, but he did capture better than anyone the tenor of our times: it’s all about statism, the heart of the liberal theory! By way of consolation, let me state that our conservative brethren are in the same boat, too.

In retrospect, if Locke's version of liberalism was lukewarm, something we can vaguely imagine we could live with, Hobbes's was hardcore.

Page 1 — Page 2
Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for roger-nowosielski

Article Author: Roger Nowosielski

I'm Polish-born but as American as apple-pie. I've seen a great many changes since I first set foot in this land in 1961 - many of them, I'm afraid, not for the better. Thanks to the Internet era and the "blogging" phenomenon, we can address the issues …

Visit Roger Nowosielski's author pageRoger Nowosielski's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

  • 1 - jamminsue

    Feb 26, 2012 at 8:03 am

    Good job, Roger. I never thought of Hobbes as liberal, but you have convinced me here....I always thought Locke basically re-wrote Hobbes in more polite language.

  • 2 - roger nowosielski

    Feb 26, 2012 at 8:05 am

    Well, Locke did as a matter of fact; made it more palatable. But I'm more than convinced that Hobbes laid out the foundations.

  • 3 - jamminsue

    Feb 26, 2012 at 9:40 am

    Yes, I agree that Hobbes laid it out. He was not the original, but definitley did organize the ideas in a scientific manner.

    Hobbes wanted to take Political Theory and turn it into a science, which before him, it was not.

  • 4 - roger nowosielski

    Feb 26, 2012 at 9:42 am

    Exactly!

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for May 21, 2013

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs