Modern_Political_Thought__Basis_for_Democracy

Setting the Basis for Democracy Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill are four of the most influential thinkers of their time. Their opinions vary widely from one another in some regards but parallel each other in certain areas. While none of them are definitively right, all of their ideas were essential in forming the basis of modern political theory and thought, as we know it today. They sought to break away from the accepted beliefs of the time and create their own ideas, ones that were radical and groundbreaking. These new ideas, which formed the framework of modern political theory, are essential for the eventual development of democracy. Without these authors’ works, our current democracy might have never been created. One of the universal themes found in these writers work is the concept of freedom. At the time of their writings, there were only a handful of democracies, for some of them there were none, and this fact shows in their writing. In order to fully understand their writings one must look at each authors’ concept of freedom. While they all have differing opinions on what constitutes freedom and exactly how much freedom people should have, the prevalence of this idea in their work is vital to understanding their political theory and it still has relevance even today. There is a universal theme in all of these authors’ works. It is an idea of people existing freely and exchanging some of their rights in order to be governed. This is one of the more significant concepts found in all of their works and is important to the development of political theory. Thomas Hobbes explains freedom as “according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of external Impediments: which Impediments, may oft take away part of a mans power to do what he would; but cannot hinder him from using the power left him, according as his judgment, and reason shall dictate to him” (Hobbes 91). Hobbes is saying that every man has a naturally endowed right to make decisions regarding his life as he sees fit. Man has this freedom to choose without the influence of outside “impediments.” This belief of freedom however is not universal in Hobbes’ theory. His concept of freedom changes depending on the circumstances of man. In order to understand this difference in circumstances one must look at the description of Hobbes state of nature. According to Hobbes the state of nature is a constant state of war were there is no security and people are under constant threat of attack (Hobbes 89). He explains his concept of freedom in the state of nature when he says “the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing anything, which in his own Judgment, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto” (Hobbes 91). This is one of the fundamental ideas of Hobbes theory on the natural condition of man. For Hobbes, this natural freedom exists in the state of nature and is a right of every man to defend himself against possible enemies, and every man has a right to whatever he pleases, free of constraints. The natural state where man has unlimited individual rights is dangerous, delicate and constantly at war. According to Hobbes, it is a natural development of man to leave this state in order to end the war and develop society. Hobbes claims “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as farre-forth, as for peace, and defense of himself 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 against himself” (Hobbes 92). He is saying that in order to form a society and be secure, that man will trade these unlimited rights for a commonwealth and civil law. The concept of freedom as explained by Hobbes is the idea that man is by nature free to do whatever he pleases but in order to form a working society he must trade in some of these freedoms for security and organization. It is important to note that not all rights are given up once the natural state is left. For Hobbes, freedom means a contract or trade of some free will for the “liberty of subjects,” or restrained freedom, under rule to better society. Machiavelli, much like Hobbes, also believed that unlimited freedom could not exist simultaneously with rule and ordered society. Certain rights must be given up in order for people to be governed successfully. While Machiavelli’s The Prince is more or less a guide to governing, it also has underlying political theories regarding liberty, which ties in to Hobbes’ view. Machiavelli believes that only through collective self-rule could the majority ensure their freedom and independence. According to Machiavelli, “anyone who becomes master of a city accustomed to a free way of life, and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it himself, because when it rebels, it will always be able to appeal to the spirit of freedom and its ancient institutions, which are never forgotten, despite the passage of time and any benefits bestowed by the new ruler” (Machiavelli 18). Machiavelli is saying that it is impossible for a people who lived freely to be governed by a monarch; therefore a city must be destroyed and reconstructed in order to run properly. His idea however only relates to cities were the citizens have been given absolute freedom. For Machiavelli, there can be no unlimited freedom for the subjects; some liberties must be exchanged for proper governing and a smoothly run society. This parallels Hobbes idea that in order to be governed successfully, people must give up some of their natural rights. Machiavelli however believes in the governed people having a lot less rights than Hobbes’ ideal commonwealth. Hobbes ideal commonwealth has much more individual liberties available to the citizens. Either way, there is clearly a common theme amongst the two views, giving up some freedom is necessary to be properly governed. Much like Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau takes the stance that in order to fully understand man one must see man as he existed in a natural state, free from law and with unlimited rights. In this state, Rousseau saw man more as timid and shy, not constantly at war like the state of nature Hobbes envisioned. It was only because of reason that man was able to leave this state and eventually create a civilized society (Rousseau). Our discussion in class only dealt with his First and Second Discourse, not his other work on the subject, the Social Contract. In the Social Contract, he says that we give up some of our natural rights in order to have our remaining rights defended by the community (Nederman). This idea clearly parallels Hobbes view, were we trade some of our natural rights in order to form a working society with laws and regulations to protect our rights we have left. Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau does not believe this exchange is necessarily a good thing. He views it more as an inevitable development of any person once they have the faculty of reason, reason being the key element in leaving the state of nature. The clear relationship, although not completely similar, between Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau’s views on freedom is evidence enough of the importance of the idea to understanding political theory. While they each say it in a different way and with different words, all three agree that in order to be governed, a person must give up certain natural rights and leave the state of nature. John Stuart Mill was another very influential political theorist of the time. His beliefs drew on the works of various authors and his own ideas. He wrote an entire essay on the topic of freedom, entitled On Liberty. In this essays Mill seeks to address the nature of power and the limits that it can impose over the individual in society. Unlike Hobbes and Rousseau, he does not start by discussing the state of nature or explaining it. For him, this is irrelevant to the current issue of freedom. While Rousseau believes there is a social contract of sorts between all people in order to be ruled, even if he does not agree with it, Mill rejects this idea. He does however, say that “society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest (Mill 276). Although he clearly says there is no contract, what he describes is very similar to Rousseau’s idea of a social contract, Hobbes view of freedom, and Machiavelli’s understanding of rule and freedom. Mill also believes that the only time it is acceptable for an individual or for society to interfere with someone’s personal freedom is for self-protection or self-preservation (Mill). This belief of his is one of the key points of Rousseau’s Social Contract. Rousseau believed that the general will of the people shall eventually overpower the rights of the individual, this however will only happen when it is beneficial to society. He sees the intervention of society as something that secures freedoms as opposed to limiting them. Once again, not exactly the same, but clearly in harmony with Hobbes view of society exchanging some freedoms for protection, and an obvious correlation with Mill’s beliefs. This idea of exchanging rights for protection is a clear parallel in the beliefs of all four thinkers thus far. Even if some of the individuals were not around to see, their ideas expanded on or agreed with, they all have a similar concept of freedom. This clearly demonstrates the importance of the idea and it has relevance today. Our current government is in fact one that makes us give up certain individual rights, while not all of them, in order to be governed. This is essential in running a democracy or any government smoothly. Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill are clearly important political theorists. Modern political thought, as it is today, is dramatically different from what it was in the past. Aristotle and others like him laid the framework for classical political thought. For the most part, political theory stayed the same for a number of years. It was not until philosophers like Thomas Hobbes came around and questioned the accepted ideals of the time that anything changed. His works in turn led to others like Machiavelli and Rousseau to continue this break from classical political thought and develop what we now know as modern political theory. John Stuart Mill continued this process. While their works varied greatly, there were some striking similarities in their ideas. Despite all of them living in different places and at different times, they were all concerned with the concept of freedom to some extent. They each formed theories about the nature of freedom, some relating it to man’s natural state, others as an inevitable development of socialization. Their notions of freedom differed from one another but one universal idea remained the same throughout their works. The concept of exchange in society, specifically the exchange of liberties, can be found, to some extent, in each work that we studied this semester. All four authors believed to a certain degree, that man must forfeit certain natural rights in order to be governed by society and secure the remainder of his liberties. This fundamental concept is extremely important because it helps form the basis for modern political thought, and is a clear predecessor to the development of democracy.