HOBBES VS LOCKE VS ROUSSEAU
THREE SOCIAL CONTRACTS COMPARED
11 January 2026
1. Three Thinkers, One Question
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all ask the same fundamental question:
Why should anyone obey political authority?
Their answers differ radically because they begin from different assumptions about human nature, fear, freedom, and legitimacy. Together, they map the entire terrain of modern political thought — from order, to rights, to collective sovereignty.
2. Human Nature: Fear, Reason, or Corruption
Everything begins with how each thinker views human beings before government.
Hobbes Humans are equal in vulnerability, driven by fear and self-preservation. Without authority, life collapses into violence and insecurity.
Locke Humans are rational and moral, capable of cooperation, but justice is unstable without neutral enforcement.
Rousseau Humans are naturally peaceful and compassionate. It is society — especially inequality and property — that corrupts them.
Their political solutions follow directly from these premises.
3. The State of Nature: Chaos, Inconvenience, or Innocence
Hobbes The state of nature is a war of all against all. Escape is urgent and non-negotiable.
Locke The state of nature is workable but fragile. The problem is not violence, but biased enforcement.
Rousseau The state of nature is largely harmonious. The real fall occurs with ownership, comparison, and hierarchy.
Each thinker is diagnosing a different disease — and prescribing a different cure.
4. Why the Social Contract Exists
Hobbes To escape chaos and survive.
Locke To protect pre-existing rights.
Rousseau To restore freedom lost to inequality.
Hobbes’ contract is about security.
Locke’s contract is about legitimacy.
Rousseau’s contract is about moral freedom.
5. What Is Given Up — and What Is Gained
Hobbes Individuals surrender their right to private violence in exchange for peace.
Locke Individuals delegate power conditionally, retaining their rights.
Rousseau Individuals surrender themselves to the collective — and in doing so, regain freedom on a higher plane.
Freedom means very different things to each.
6. The Role of the State
Hobbes The sovereign must be absolute and feared.
Locke Government must be limited, lawful, and accountable.
Rousseau The state must express the general will — the collective interest of citizens as equals.
Where Hobbes fears disorder, Rousseau fears domination.
7. Resistance and Revolution
Hobbes Rebellion is irrational unless survival is no longer guaranteed.
Locke Rebellion is justified when rights are violated.
Rousseau Rebellion is legitimate when the state ceases to represent the general will.
This difference explains why Locke becomes the philosopher of liberal revolution, and Rousseau the philosopher of radical democracy.
8. Property: Foundation or Corruption
Hobbes Property exists only through authority.
Locke Property is natural and central to liberty.
Rousseau Property is the origin of inequality and alienation.
Modern capitalism rests on Locke.
Modern socialism rebels with Rousseau.
Modern security states quietly echo Hobbes.
9. Three Political Archetypes
Hobbes gives us the security state.
Locke gives us the liberal constitutional state.
Rousseau gives us the democratic-collectivist state.
Every modern system is a hybrid — leaning more heavily on one at different moments.
10. The Enduring Tension
These three social contracts are not historical artefacts.
They are live options.
When fear dominates, societies drift toward Hobbes.
When rights are invoked, they quote Locke.
When inequality becomes unbearable, Rousseau returns.
Modern politics is not about choosing one — it is about managing the conflict between all three.
The social contract is not a settled agreement - It is a permanent argument.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean, keep it lean