In the next section we turn to two other contract theorists – Locke and Kant –
but we argue that their thought is sufficiently different to Hobbes’s to warrant
attributing a distinct stream of liberal argument to them.Rights-based liberalism
Locke
Most courses in the history of political thought yoke together Thomas Hobbes and
John Locke, and compare and contrast their contract theories. A simplistic
comparison would describe Locke’s state of nature as a rather less unpleasant place
to be than the Hobbesian equivalent, and that this affects their attitude to the
contract, and to the rights individuals should enjoy under the state. For example,
Locke thinks we have a right to rebel against the state, whereas Hobbes rejects such
a right. But these superficial differences conceal more significant ones, such that it
is possible to say that Locke was not simply the next in line in the contract tradition,
but articulated a distinct stream of liberal thought, one which emphasised moral
rights. That tradition has had a huge impact not only on political thought in Locke’s
native England, but also, and perhaps especially, in the United States.
As we saw, Hobbes maintained that people were free and equal in the state of
nature, and that there existed ‘natural laws’. On the face of it, Locke offers a similar
description of the state of nature, but his understanding of freedom, equality and
natural law is quite different to that of Hobbes:- Hobbes’s liberty is simply the absence of restraint, whereas Locke’s liberty takes
the form of actionable rights. - Hobbes understood equality in naturalistic rather than moral terms. For Locke,
we are equal because no person has a natural right to subordinate another. - Unlike Hobbes’s laws of nature, Locke’s laws have a theological basis – we have
a natural duty to preserve ourselves, a duty owed to God, who created us.
For Locke, moral rights precede the contract to create a state, and the role of the
state is to settle disputes over the interpretation of those rights, and ensure that
violations of the rights are punished. The most important among the rights are
rights to private property, which are grounded in rights in one’s own body. Self-
ownership is, however, derivative of God’s right, as creator, in his creatures. (Locke’s
theory of private property was discussed in relation to a contemporary reworking
of it by Robert Nozick.) Economic and social life is possible in the state of nature.
People can enter contracts – that is, exercise their powers – and individuals have
the right to enforce them. Furthermore, at an early stage in the economic
development of society individuals are materially satisfied – they do not compete
for scarce resources. Only later, with a rise in population, does the problem of
scarcity arise (Locke, 1988: 297–8).
What makes the state of nature ‘inconvenient’ is the absence of a body that can
authoritativelydetermine when rights have been violated and effectivelyenforce a
remedy (Locke, 1988: 329–30). Hobbes was obsessed with effectiveness, but because
Chapter 8 Liberalism 183