Comparing Hobbes, Leviathan, And Jean-Jacques Rousseau

A state of nature certainly differs from the state found under a government, and the freedoms found in nature will not all be present in a civil state; however, instead of losing freedom with the institution of government, it can flourish and manifest itself in entirely different ways than in pure nature. I will first look into writings from Thomas Hobbes, “Leviathan,” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “The Social Contract,” to see two contrasting views on the state of nature versus a civil state and what freedom looks like in those states. Taking Rousseau’s point of view, I will support my claim that freedom can be found in and improved by civil states and discuss what type of society this can be found.

Hobbes describes the “state of nature” as a state that people live in where there is no government and people have the right to do or take anything that they want. To Hobbes, this is true freedom. In the state of nature humans have the right to all things which is freedom at the most basic meaning of the word, and Hobbes claims this is all that goes into freedom.

Hobbes describes government as a “Leviathan” because, in his

Concerning liberties of a person entering a civil state from the state of nature Rousseau says, “In this ·civil· state he is deprived of many advantages that he got from nature, but he gets enormous benefits in return” (Rousseau). The benefits Rousseau speaks of come out because, in a civil state, it is no longer necessary for people to simply focus on their basic desires. For example, in nature ownership was purely dictated by an individual’s power, but in a civil state there are rules agreed upon by the general will that allow ownership with protection from the state. The state also gives people the experience of moral and social liberty that would not be experienced in the state of