In this essay, I would like to discuss two views that clashed during the civil war in England in 1642, namely Thomas Hobbes’s contractarian view of society and the Neo-Roman theory of free states. The supporters of Hobbes’s opinion advocated for England to be governed by the king, while the other side defended the parliament. In my opinion, the main differences between these theories lie in three aspects: their vision of the individual, freedom and rights, and how the structure of the state should look; the last logically following from the two previous ones. I will use only Hobbes’s arguments from one side, while from the other side, I will employ arguments from a plethora of different authors.

Let’s start with the individual. Most theories start with describing the human beings’ state before the establishment of the society to explain why it was established in the first place and for what purpose. Thomas Hobbes tells us that the ‘State of Nature’, meaning the pre-societal state, guarantees every individual a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1996, p.89). Neo-Roman theory puts it differently stating that the “state of liberty is the natural condition of mankind” (Salmon, 1959, as cited in Skinner, 1998, p.19). Hobbes argues that human beings are by nature driven by fear and seeking fulfilment of their selfish interests as well as self-preservation.

As follows from the premises mentioned above, in Hobbes’s vision the state is established as a necessary response to human nature and is intended not for the protection of natural rights because in his vision nature granted human beings the right to kill, steal, rape, etc., but to limit those rights with the purpose of providing security for its citizens. Every one of the individuals entering Hobbes’s social contract agrees willingly to exchange the entirety of his rights, excluding the rights for self-defence (self-preservation) for that security. On the contrary, the proponents of Neo-Roman theory argue that the state was initially established to protect and secure natural rights. For the proponents of this theory, freedom is viewed as the “unconstrained enjoyment of a number of specific civil rights” (Skinner, 1998, p.18). Hobbes is not especially eager to employ the language of rights. He argues that it is possible for obedience to laws to be compatible with being free. In his view, you are free as long as you are uninterrupted in doing what you will to do. In this, supporters of the Neo-Roman theory agree. But regarding the laws, Hobbes says that using fear of consequences, which is natural to humans, laws push citizens to replace their will to disobey with the will to obey. This way, there is no action against one’s will. At the same time, he writes that “In cases where the Soveraign has prescribed no rule, there the Subject hath the Liberty to do, or forebeare, according to his own discretion” (Hobbes, 1996, as cited in Skinner, 1998, p.10). For Hobbes, freedom is a concept, closely tied to the individual, as opposed to the theory of free states view that the freedom of the individual is linked to and dependent upon the freedom of the whole state.

Skinner (1998) says that from the point of view of Neo-Roman theorists “the bodies of nations and states are likewise free if and only if they are similarly unconstrained from using their powers according to their own wills in pursuit of their desired ends” (p. 25). This implies that free states should necessarily be able to be self-governed. And for the lawmaking, the consent of all the citizens is needed. Most of the free states’ theorists agree that such lawmaking power should be exercised by the national assembly, members of which were chosen by the citizens. The consent in this case is being expressed through the appointment of the assembly. Each citizen takes an equal part in the legislature. Hobbesian theory suggests that by stepping into the social contract, an artificial person of the state is created, and the person or the assembly, upon which this person is placed, bears all the sovereign power and becomes the Judge. The difference between the two theories here is that Hobbes’s view implies that the laws are enacted by the will of the sovereign and as his theory suggests that one person can be a sovereign, that means that the laws will be the will of this person. Sallust argues that when the state is being controlled by a limited number of powerful persons, then the situation of its citizens is the same as the absence of civil liberty. Proponents of the Neo-Roman theory say that it is vital to have the assembly instead of one or a few persons in power, with many authors arguing for two assemblies, one deliberative and the other executive.

To sum it up, I will say that the main differences lie in the perceptions of first of all, rights and freedom, the Hobbesian state being established to limit natural rights and provide security instead and the Neo-Roman free state to protect and secure natural liberty. Moreover, one of the main differences is Hobbes’s contractarian theory permits autocracy, while Neo-Roman theory names the republic as the only free state type. The main danger that Neo-Roman theorists see in Hobbes’s theory is the arbitrary power of the sovereign exercised by one person. I would like to finish my essay with a quote from John Locke regarding Hobbes’s theory: “This is to think that men are so foolish that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by polecats or foxes, but are content, nay, think it safety, to be devoured by lions.” (p. 169)

Bibliography:

1. Hobbes, T. (1996). Hobbes: Leviathan (R. Tuck, Ed.; Revised student edition). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1651)
2. Locke, J. (2016). Two treatises of government (L. Ward, Ed.). Focus. (Original work published 1689)
3. Sallust (1931). Bellum Catilinae in Sallust (J. C. Rolfe, Ed. & Trans.). London. (Original work published ca. 43-40 BC)
4. Salmon, J. H. M. (1959). The French Religious Wars in English Political Thought, Oxford University Press.
5. Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before Liberalism. Cambridge University Press.