The Creation of the Commonwealth: Hobbes vs. Locke

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both have seemingly similar, yet very different views on the state of the nature of man in absence of government. As well, both have different views on how man emerged from this state and erected government to control man. While both believe the state of nature to be, at the least, somewhat chaotic, Locke has comprised a solid argument which will lead man to the creation of a limited government, whereas Hobbes has created an argument that leads man to a state based on authoritarian rule. These arguments are both based on the state of nature, leaving the state of nature, and the creation of the commonwealth. While both forms of government are essentially better than the state of nature, Locke’s argument for the limited government is more logical than Hobbes’ argument for authoritarian rule.

Hobbes believes the state of nature of man is a war of all against all characterized by an inability to hold property, whereas Locke believes that in a state of nature reason creates an ability to hold property. Hobbes describes that nature has created men equal in both body and in mind. This is true to the point where the difference between two men is minimal. Hobbes argues that even the weakest man has “strength enough to kill the strongest” one way or another[1]. With respect to the equality of mind, Hobbes argues there is “greater equality amongst men, than that of strength. For prudence, is but experience” which “equally bestows on all men, in those things they equally apply themselves unto”[2]. All men have similar experiences, and therefore the minds develop equally. Therefore, all men are equal.

Hobbes continues by arguing that when two equal men desire the same thing, “they become enemies” and attempt to subdue or destroy one another to attain the thing[3]. As a result, there is no way for one to have security of one’s self or of possessions.

There are three causes of conflict in Hobbes’ state of nature: competition, diffidence, and glory. Competition causes men to “invade for gain”, diffidence causes men to invade “for safety” and glory causes men to invade “for reputation”[4]. Because men are not under a power to keep order and avoid these three causes of conflict, this conflict becomes a state of war. War is not merely battle only, but rather “a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known”[5]. Peace is any other time. This state of constant war is counterproductive concerning formation of a society: