D@dalos - Democracy: Live TV debate on philosopy of the state

A live TV debate between Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Presenter: I would like to welcome you all to the latest program in our "Philosophy Forum" series. This week we're asking: Why do we need a state? I'm delighted to announce that three of the most important philosophers on the state have agreed to join us today. Please welcome from France, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and from England John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Mr Hobbes, if I may turn to you first. You are regarded as the founder of modern state philosophy. Your most important work, which was published in 1651, is called "Leviathan". Could you tell us what this mysterious title actually means?

Hobbes: I'd be delighted, back then during the 15th century people were still familiar with the Old Testament. In the book of Job and Isaiah, but also in the psalms, a large sea monster called Leviathan is mentioned - which usually took the form of a snake or dragon - and was used to fill the people with fear. I decided to use this sea monster as a symbol of state authority. As the highest worldly power, the state spreads fear and anxiety and all other powers submit to it.

Presenter: That is quite different, then, from the understanding that the Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle held of the state, which remained valid until well into the Middle Ages. Didn't Aristotle view man as a social being and regard the state as being the fulfillment of humankind, rather than something to be feared.

Hobbes: You're quite right. Indeed, I no longer regard man as a social being. My starting point is the individual and his individual freedoms. No one is naturally subject to someone else. This means that all restrictions of an individual's freedoms, including restrictions from the state, are only justifiable if each and every citizen has consented to them. With "Leviathan", I wanted to demonstrate that the state which spreads fear and anxiety, gets its authority from the consent of all the people.

Hobbes: You have misunderstood me. When I say natural state, I do not mean a primitive developmental state in which people manage without any of the technological advances made. No, I regard natural state as meaning the state in which humanity would find itself, if the nation state did not exist. A natural state in the sense of no rulers and no laws etc. I use this natural state for a thought experiment. I imagine a natural state in which there is no nation state and explore the difficulties that would arise. From this, we can determine why we actually need a state. My assumption is that all people would consent to state authority, if it could guarantee an end to these difficulties.

Hobbes: For me a natural state is characterized by "a condition of war of everyone against everyone". In saying this, I am not suggesting that without the state people would be constantly in a state of war, but I do believe they would be mistrustful and hostile of one another and always ready to use weapons and force against each other. Man is a wolf to mankind...

Rousseau: ...that's nonsense, I demonstrated in my publication entitled "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Among Mankind" that man's nature is not egoistical and malicious.

Hobbes: I'm sorry, Mr Rousseau, but if we look at the facts realistically it is clear that man is primarily interested in his own well-being; man is egoistic. You may well regard this as a pessimistic view of mankind, but it was formed during many years of civil war in my country, which threatened my existence and forced me into exile for 10 years in France. My second assumption is that nature created man almost equal. That is that even the weakest is capable of killing the strongest, either by cunning or by uniting with others. This means that in a natural state no one is able to claim a benefit, which could not be claimed equally well by someone else. If there were no state, then everyone would have a right to everything. And this would lead to competition and dispute, or rather to that which I have called "a condition of war of everyone against everyone".

Hobbes: The only way of preventing a situation such as this is to create a common authority, namely the creation of a state. I have called the birth of such a state the social contract. This should not be confused with the contract of rule that is often made between the ruler and the people. The social contract is an agreement between the citizens and not with the ruler. If we accept that war is caused because of everyone's right to everything, to establish peace the people must enter into a contract in which they, one, declare their willingness to forego their right to everything and, two, agree to transfer their rights to one person, the sovereign. This sovereign holds power and is in a position to protect society's individuals against attack from other citizens and foreigners. This task might equally well be performed by a collection of people.

Hobbes: I do. Even an egoist recognizes the long-term benefits offered by a life of peace and security over one of fear and anxiety, which he would certainly be faced with in a state of war. Indeed, an egoist wants life to be as comfortable as possible, and peace is a precondition for this.

Hobbes: This would, of course, be a problem. A person would only be prepared to give up his/her rights provided everyone else gave up theirs too, or rather that no one else benefits as a result of him/her giving up his/her rights. Yet precisely because of this, it would also be clear to everyone that the contract could not be entered into unless everyone - with the exception of the sovereign - were not prepared to forgo their rights too. Perhaps it's worth reminding ourselves that we are actually in a thought experiment here. A contract is not really being entered into. I do believe, however, that I have shown that all people would, after a period of thought, agree to such an agreement. And, indeed, it is this that leads me to believe that the state is justified.

Hobbes: State power is derived from that which has already been said. Provided the state guarantees its citizens peace and security, they owe it total loyalty. No individual would have the right to resist the will of the sovereign, even if the individual feels he/she has been treated unjustly. The sovereign could not even be held accountable for having an innocent person executed, as long as the sovereign believed it necessary in the interest of peace. The subjects' responsibility to obedience ends when the state is no longer capable of securing peace.

Rousseau: That's scandalous! Even an absolute monarchy would be justifiable according to that idea. This would be absolutely unacceptable to a democrat such as myself. And surely no one would agree to the idea of citizens having no freedoms or rights.

Hobbes: Please don't forget: Only a powerful state is really capable of securing peace. Or at least this is the conclusion I reached after witnessing the turmoil that raged through my country during its civil war. In the end, it took Cromwell's dictatorship to bring it to an end. Compared with the terror of anarchy, the danger presented by despotism seems much more agreeable.

Presenter: I'm still a little uncertain as to whether this is the right way. Turning to you, Mr Locke. You're regarded as the founder of liberalism with your publication entitled "Two Treatises of Government" 1689/90 and of paving the way for the American constitution. What do you think of the philosophical ideas of your colleague, Mr Hobbes, on the state?

Locke: My opinion is split. I regard using a social contract to justify the state as being one of the most brilliant ideas put forward by political philosophy and I agree with Hobbes on this point. But my views on a natural state are completely different and, therefore, my views on the state are also completely different. As far as I'm concerned, even when state authority is absent a situation characterized by an unrestrained desire for rights does not exist, since there are also natural rights and responsibilities. If we listen to reason it teaches us that no one may kill, injure, steal or take another's freedom. If we are all equal, then surely I must grant others that which I claim for myself: Namely the right to life and to remain unharmed, the right to freedom and the right to possess property.

Locke: Quite, I call them "natural rights". These are inalienable rights that everyone possesses simply because they are human; they are not given by the state but exist in a natural state.

Locke: The thing is, you see, that these natural rights derived from reason are of a general and abstract nature. Since these rights are not clearly worded, difficulties arise in their implementation. It is easy to imagine fierce disputes breaking out about how these rights should be interpreted in individual cases, especially when the opponents are biased. It is also possible that problems might arise in the implementation of these rights against determined opposition, leading to a situation in which someone is in the right, but cannot exercise it.

Locke: The state's role is clear: The state's responsibility is to put down in concrete terms these natural rights in the form of clearly worded legislation. It is also responsible for monitoring these laws and making sure that they are complied with. The state also needs judges to hand down unbiased decisions in the event of disputes. Summing up, one might say that the state is responsible for securing natural rights.

Locke: Absolutely not. The state must also respect these natural rights, which, after all, are given to man in a natural state. In contrast to Mr Hobbes, I view the state's monopoly of power as representing a great threat to the freedom of citizens. To counter this threat, the state must be structured in such a way as to provide the citizen with protection from the misuse of power. This is one of the basic requirements of liberalism.

Locke: By separating power. The legislative, which is the law-making body, and the executive, which is the section of government responsible for implementing decisions, have to be separated, with the legislative being subjected to an additional control. My idea is based on a law-making body, which can be relieved from office or changed if it violates the trust placed in it by the people. Indeed, my French colleague, Montesquieu, has further developed this idea about the separation of powers and introduced a judicial body to complement the legislative and executive, called the judiciary. In this way the freedom of the citizen can be effectively protected.

Rousseau: Unbelievable! In reality, liberalism has less to do with freedom and more to do with justifying the middle classes. I put it to you, Mr Locke, that for you freedom means nothing more than freedom for the rich and propertied classes. Your concept of the state is merely a "night watchman state", whose prime task is to ensure that nothing is stolen from wealthy citizens. I believe that in addition to having the right to retain property, citizens should also have a positive claim to property. This means that society's property should be distributed equally among the people and the state must be responsible for putting an end to the differences between rich and poor.

Presenter: O.K., Mr Rousseau, since you are clearly keen to enter the debate, I'll now turn to you. If I may: You are regarded as one of the spiritual fathers of the French Revolution, or, at least, the revolutionaries cited your ideas in their actions. I think we have already gathered from your outbursts that you vehemently reject the ideas promoted by Mr Hobbes and Mr Locke. And this surprises me, since your main political work is entitled "The Social Contract".

Rousseau: I can assure you that this is the only thing that these other two gentlemen and I have in common. Indeed, I would like to state here and now that I regard myself as being the only one to have understood the idea of a social contract. As I have already mentioned, my main concern is the freedom of the people. And back then in 1762, I realized something: In a natural state, man is completely free. Yet wherever I looked, I saw mankind in chains. The biggest challenge facing political philosophy, therefore, is this: To find a form of government that both protects the individual while at the same time upholding his freedoms.

Rousseau: No it's not, provided certain conditions are met. I will only have the time to mention two of these conditions here. The first condition is that all people are treated equally when the contract is entered into, without any exceptions whatsoever. And for this reason a sovereign - as expounded by Hobbes - standing outside of the contract, that does not forgo any rights yet to whom all rights are transferred is unacceptable. The "common will" of the people should be responsible for determining state action and not the despotic rule of a sovereign. The will of the people should be a decisive part of the political decision-making process; the social contract idea, then, inevitably leads to democracy. In actual fact, I understand democracy as meaning the direct involvement of citizens in all political decisions. Only in this way can the natural freedom of citizens be upheld within the state system: When the will of the state is at one with the will of the individual, everyone is free, since in obeying the laws of the land, the individual is actually obeying his own will.

Locke: All well and good, but if the people were actually asked to decide upon state policy, a whole range of different opinions would be expressed. Surely, this would not lead to a universal will, and, if the truth be told, this is quite understandable, since the interests of individuals are very different. A factory owner's interests, for instance, are very different from a worker's.

Rousseau: I agree. The common will is not identical with the sum of individual will. And this leads me on to my second condition. If these differing wills are really due to differing interests, then we have to ensure that differences in interests do not exist. And if these differing interests can be traced back to different property ownership levels, then we have to ensure that everyone owns the same amount of property. Therefore the social contract makes it necessary for people to relinquish their property as well as their rights. The state is responsible for distributing goods and wealth among society. If we can arrive at a situation in which everyone owns the same amount of property, then differing interests would no longer exist, and all would be united in one interest, namely that of securing life. And in such a system common will would rule and natural freedom would be guaranteed by the state.

Hobbes: These ideas are totally unrealistic! History has demonstrated that such ideas are not workable. Direct democracy - might work in a small state like your birth town, Geneva. But in the large states that have grown up across the world during the 18th century, such a system is not workable. And as for your concept about the distribution of wealth - this reminds me of the experiment carried out under communism in Europe's Eastern Block countries, which failed miserably.

Rousseau: Please don't forget that democracy has been introduced into these large states in the form of representative democracy. And without my demand for equal distribution of wealth, the fight for social justice during the 19th century, which led to the creation of the welfare state, would probably not have taken place. The state must have an interest in the welfare of its citizens. Because who would look after the weak, ill, unemployed and other disadvantaged groups, if the state didn't?

Presenter: I'm sorry gentlemen, but our time is almost up and I'm going to have to end our discussion on that note. We were unable to reach an agreement on why we need a state. It seems to me, however, that your different concepts on the possible structure of a state are not entirely mutually exclusive. I think that we have established that the state and its monopoly on power is necessary - as emphasized by you, Mr Hobbes - to secure internal and external peace. If we take a look at the modern (...) state, we can see that in its role as a liberal constitutional state it also protects people's natural rights, just as you, Mr Locke, have called for. Indeed, the liberal constitutional state also sees itself as a democratic welfare state and as being responsible for the welfare of its citizens and social equality, which is in line with the views expressed by you, Mr Rousseau. I would like to end by thanking all of you for taking part in tonight's discussion!