Great Fiction, thank you also. Previously, you had made reference to "Lockean persuaded Christian". This sent me off to find out who Locke was. This lead me to run across Thomas Hobbes, who I found very interesting, in that, I found an almost kindred philosophy with him. I would like ask if you would kindly give any insights you may have on the similarities and differences Locke and Hobbes had.
Its my pleasure
John Locke and Thomas Hobbs both were contrasting contributers regarding natural law, and idealogical social contracts (Social Contract Theory). Hobbs preceded Locke in the seventeenth century and was a proponent of “State Sovereignty (Book - Leviathan),” whereas Locke a little later that century was a proponent of “Individual Sovereignty (Books - Two Treatises on Government).”
Hobbs did not believe that “Rights” should come from “Natural Law in the State of Nature” because people were too feeble to make good judgements, and believed that Government should be the mechanism to maintain, and grant “Rights” though civil law. Hobbs saw “Natural Law” in the “State of Nature” to be dangerous and should be avoided, as it was brutish, poor, solitary and short; in modern terminology it was likely to end in lawless-anarchy. Hobbs did however believe you had a right to survive within to confines of the “Sovereign State”, but did not have a right to rebel or revolt.
Locke believed “Natural Rights” should come from “Natural Law in the State of Nature” and believed that the premise for these “Natural Rights” were “Life, Liberty and Property.” Locke believed that the “State of Nature” was less dangerous and advocated that civil intervention was to “only protect individual sovereignty regarding Life, Liberty and Property.” Locke believed that the individual is an “owner of their own selves”. Locke also believed that if government was unethical to harm “Natural Rights” that society can revolt and overturn it.
The U.S. is one of the few if not the only nation that has a social contract (in its beginning) that was written in the Lockean tradition where the Bill of Rights and roles would “restrict” what government “shall not” have the power to do regarding the sovereign individual or the Union States. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Madison among other founders were heavily influenced by John Locke and Natural Rights Theory. Yet U.S. constitutional beginnings did have some compromises from the ethical position of Natural Rights Theory.
If you ponder constitutions around the world you will notice either a Hobbsean or Lockean influence. If “rights” are administered by the State then its likely to be “Hobbsean” in nature. If “rights” are protected by restrictions to the State, then its likely to be “Lockean” in nature. Restrictions of the State are far superior to benevolence from the State, as restriction moves sovereignty to the individual.
Since Natural Rights Theory is an “ethical” theory regarding “ life, liberty and property” especially the self-ownership of one's own body, its reasonable to consider that Locke was not only a social contract theorist, but he was also a ethicist; skilled in differentiating “ethical sovereignty.” Scripture was his premise for the theory, but today you also have secular Natural Rights Theorist such as Murray Rothbard that build the same fortified position from mans primordial birth.
