Thomas Hobbes State of Nature

In the beginning, there was a darker side to the preservation of life. Man lived a life of kill or be killed, without any regard for other than his own. Life was solitary, poor, brutish and short. This barbaric and primitive state is what Thomas Hobbes believed to be the State of Nature. Practical reason dictates that when threatened you either act, give up your property, or anticipate for a sign of weakness to act. This means that all have a right to everything so long as it can be attained. People cannot be trusted to follow the Golden Rule, or the ethic of reciprocity, seen in many religions as stating that one must do unto others as one would like to be treated themselves.
With the ever looming danger of a cutthroat, survival of the fittest scenario, a need for security arose and the people reached a covenant through reason, which would ensure the self-preservation of those who agreed to it. By forming a social contract, there arises a need for an outside force who must be there to enforce these rules, otherwise any fault would eventually lead those who agreed to the covenant back to a state of war.
An all-powerful ruler is appointed in order to ensure the preservation of those in the covenant, which Hobbes called the Leviathan. Born outside of the covenant, this sovereign will keep the people from destroying one another by imposing supreme rule. This meant that the people would surrender ALL their rights to the sovereign, effectively imposing an absolutist rule. But how can they make sure that the sovereign is impartial to everyone? And more importantly, what are the people to do if the Sovereign begins to abuse its power to establish a new state where no one is safe from those who are there to protect them?
At the polar o...

... middle of paper ...

...ke’s theories would later be used to justify a reason for dramatic change.
During the glorious revolution the Whigs rallied behind the theory set out by Locke in his Two Treatise of Government. The main reason was that it gave a clear theory as to why a state should be allowed to overthrow a monarchy if they abuse their power.
Locke was also the basis for much of Thomas Jefferson’s discourse as to why a revolution against Britain was necessary, to the point of seeming to be plagiarizing his work. Somewhat of a double standard is born here however. While Locke’s natural right states that no man shall be denied life liberty and property, slaves still existed after the revolution. Since Locke equated liberty with property and a revolution based on securing property against tyranny couldn’t very well turn around and take slaves, who after all were considered property.