Natural Law: Locke and Hobbes

Have you ever thought about the origins of free-market thinking and how the concept was derived? In today’s world it seems to be assumed as if it were some kind of natural law. In an odd way, it is a perversion of the concept of natural law. Natural law can be thought of as the analogue of the physical law. Physical law is the result of the the nature of space, time, and matter. Natural law is the result of the nature of humans in the world. Recently it has become clear that the idea of a natural law is also known to animals other than humans.

The idea of natural law goes all the way back to at least the Taoists of China and probably before that, but we don’t have the records to know. Aristotle believed that each animal has a mental state that is appropriate to its physical nature. Natural law underpins the Magna Carta, the declaration of right, and the English Enlightenment in England. In the US it is the foundation for the US revolution and the US Bill of Rights.

Two major early writers have been profoundly influential in discussing the concept of natural law.
John Locke in the 1600’s wrote that a person begins life as a rational, tolerant, and happy being. Locke argued further that in the natural state, man is entitled to the rights of life, health, liberty, and possessions (property). He also described people as makers of things and owners of property. Given the two aspects, a man also has the right to protect his life, his liberty, and his property. It is from these rights that there is a derivation of the rule of law, wherein the people make a compact with the rulers to uphold the law as defined in simple terms by the right to life, liberty, and property, including the acquisition of property. Any ruler that does not uphold the law is not a legitimate ruler and deserves to be overthrown if necessary by force because the ruler is in essence just a criminal but a special kind of criminal that is dangerous to all mankind.

Using these simple principles, reminiscent of Assimov’s three laws of robotics, allows one to understand our innate abhorrence and intolerance of many aspects of life in systems that are not governed by natural laws. For example, if I have the right to liberty, there can be no slavery, even though another person has the right to acquire property, a person cannot be property and still have liberty. If I own something, another person cannot take it from me without permission because it is my right to own it. I can defend myself against a murderer because I have the right to life.

While this very attractive philosophy was very influential in establishing many governmental positions, it was certainly not universally accepted.
Early in the 17th century Thomas Hobbes stated firmly that in nature, it is all out war with everything attacking everything else. He famously announced that in nature, human life is “poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes essentially denied everything Locke proposed, including Locke’s ideas about a compact with the rulers. According to Hobbes the state or the ruler if the ruler is the state, is entitled to unlimited absolute power. If the state law defines right and wrong, not some natural law. The ruler can do no wrong. The imperative of a Hobbesian ruler is to preserve the state at any cost necessary to its subjects.

Most modern democracies express a duality, a mix of Locke and Hobbes. At one extreme (Locke), the people are armed and the state is unarmed. At the other extreme (Hobbes) the state is armed and the people are unarmed. Locke’s position is that civil society grants moral and real power to the state but equally can take it away. Hobbes’ position is that there is no civil society unless the state grants it and that private or volunteer organisations are a threat to the state should be suppressed.

It is not easy to find modern examples, but Switzerland comes close to a Locke concept with the citizens more heavily armed than the state. Switzerland has enjoyed an internal calm somewhat akin to the Lockeian model, although in recent years it is dissolving. Countries such as Libya and Egypt represent states on a Hobbesian model, both of which are currently in disarray as the citizenry refuses to accept what seems an “unfair” or illegitimate ruler.

As of this writing, the conflictual mix of philosophical positions in the US with both Locke’s idea of a compact with society embodied in the Constitution, and the intense shifting to a Hobbe’s philosophy of having no personal rights in defense of the security of the state gives rise to a confusing and potentially dangerous internal clash. On the one side (Locke) the people should be able to defend their own life, liberty and property without the intervention of the state, unless the people permit that intervention. On the other side (Hobbes) the people have no rights beyond what the state gives them. It feels like most democratic societies want both, and want them passionately, but can’t figure out where the emphasis should be. In this situation you really cannot have your cake and eat it too!

Combine this conflicting confusing mess of philosophy with the currently distorted Friedman school of free-market economy, which itself was based on an appalling misunderstanding of the evolutionary principle of competitiveness on which it was based, and a very unstable and disintegrating situation is in hand.

My thanks to the writings of James A Donald, Al Engler, Keeley Ross, and others. This article derives from my own thoughts but has been strongly influenced by the writings of others as I try to muddle through the ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *