Liberalism (Hobbes)
Richard Carnes
>Of the other two names on the list - Hobbes and Spinoza - neither
>qualifies as a Liberal.
>Hobbes, with his "social organismic" theory of
>the State, was the intellectual precursor of fascism and of
>totalitarian democracy.
I don't see how anyone can call Hobbes "the" or even "an"
intellectual precursor of fascism. One of Hobbes' fundamental
principles is that the only legitimate purpose of the state is to
serve the interests of individuals, which is the main reason I call
him a liberal. This is diametrically opposed to fascism, in which
the individual serves as a means to the ends of the state. As to
"totalitarian democracy", I have no idea what that may be. Neither
do I know what Hobbes' "social organismic" theory of the state might
be. Do you mean that Hobbes compared the state to an individual
(the "Leviathan")?
It doesn't particularly matter whether you call Hobbes a liberal:
what matters is to understand what Hobbes actually said. Hobbes was
the first philosopher, to my knowledge, to articulate the following
view of political society: Individuals are primary and in some
fundamental sense equals. These individuals are moved (literally and
figuratively) by egoistic passions. There is nothing inherently
immoral about these selfish passions. Individuals have natural
rights. Their reason leads them to transfer these rights, i.e., make
a compact or contract, and thus form a government.
If anything, Hobbes is a precursor of libertarianism. Broadly
speaking, this understanding of the basis of government is
fundamental to liberalism from *Leviathan* (1651) to Nozick and
Rawls. For instance, here is a passage from Rawls' *A Theory of
Justice*:
My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and
carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the
social contract as found, say, in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In
order to do this we are not to think of the original contract as one
to enter a particular society or to set up a particular form of
government. Rather, the guiding idea is that the principles of
justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the
original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational
persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an
initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of
their association....
Here are some brief quotes from *Leviathan* ch. 14 to support what I
have said about Hobbes:
The RIGHT OF NATURE, which Writers commonly call *Jus Naturale*, is
the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe,
for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own
Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own
Judgement, and Reason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means
thereunto.
By LIBERTY, is understood, according to the proper signification of
the word, the absence of externall Impediments: which Impediments,
may oft take away part of a mans power to do what hee would; but
cannot hinder him from using the power left him, according as his
judgement, and reason shall dictate to him.
A LAW OF NATURE, (*Lex Naturalis*,) is a Precept, or generall Rule,
found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which
is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving
the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best
preserved....
And because the condition of Man, is a condition of Warre of every
one against every one; in which case every one is governed by his own
Reason; and there is nothing he can make use of, that may not be a
help unto him, in preserving his life against his enemyes; It
followeth, that in such a condition, every man has a Right to every
thing; even to one anothers body.... And consequently it is a
precept, or generall rule of Reason, *That every man, ought to
endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he
cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and
advantages of Warre*....
From this Fundamentall Law of Nature, by which men are commanded to
endeavour Peace, is derived this second Law; *That a man be willing,
when others are so too, as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defence of
hiimselfe he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all
things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as
he would allow other men against himselfe*....
The passage from Rawls reminded me that I forgot to include Rousseau
and Kant on my list of liberals. Whether or not you call them
liberals, they are undeniably contractarians whose political theory
rests solidly on their profound explorations of moral theory. Kant,
in fact, who had studied Newton's *Principia*, called Rousseau "the
Newton of the moral order."
--
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes