I was researching on philosophies regarding man and the state, and social contract is the most prominent among them; in fact, most democracies are based on this theory. Three individuals stand out in theorizing this social contract – Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. This post will be a part of a series of musings on the social contract theory. This is an amateur attempt; there will be deficiencies and logical holes, and thus the series will be continuously evolving.

John Locke was a contemporary of Thomas Hobbes. He too rejected the divine rights theory, and he also used the State of Nature to explain why men entered into a social contract. His idea of the social contract differed also with that of Hobbes.

According to Locke, the State of Nature is the natural state of perfect and complete liberty, which Hobbes holds as true. However, Locke says that this complete liberty does not give man a state of license. While there is no Sovereign nor government in the State of Nature, it is a state guided by morality. Every person is governed by the Law of Nature, which commands man not to harm one another. The State of Nature is the state of perfect liberty that is bound by the Law of Nature.

Unlike Hobbes’ State of Nature, Locke’s State of Nature is not a perpetual state of war. It can turn into a state of war when man declares war against each other. Since there is no mechanism where a man can turn to when things go wrong, and since the Law of Nature allows man to defend himself, a man may resort to force to counter the force that another man may impose on him. Locke believes that man must abandon the State of Nature to avoid this conflict.

Locke’s social contract is based on the premise of property. According to him, when a man uses raw materials with his labor, he creates private property.The Law of Nature limits what one man can own; since resources are limited, man is not allowed to make property more than what he needs, so that others can survive, too. It is the protection of their property, Locke argues, that men left the State of Nature.

Locke’s State of Nature is different from Hobbes’, where the state is populated by man. Rather, according to Locke, it is populated by a “conjugal society” – parents and children. The men, representing their families, agree to give up control and hand over that power to an entity called government. Since they have submitted to this arrangement, they have become subject to the will of the many, they have become members of a body. One can only join that body through his explicit consent. That body gave them what they did not had in the State of Nature: law, men to adjudicate laws, and men empowered to enforce these laws. Every man gives over the power to protect his property to the body that was created.

Men entered this social contract to preserve their property, lives, and liberty. When the persons designated to enforce laws abused their powers, the result is that the persons in power return to the State of Nature, and at war with those who appointed them. Since their property is threatened, and the powers-that-be act against the interests of the people, they have the right to resist the authority that they gave to the powers-that-be. The social contract is then dissolved and a new social contract is entered into.

(You may download the Second Treatise of John Locke at Project Gutenberg. Most of the data here are taken from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

Hobbes and Locked differed on two things: (1) on the State of Nature; and (2) on what happens if the social contract is violated. Hobbes’ State of Nature is one of perpetual chaos, where every man fends for himself, and looks after his own interest. As for Locke, the State of Nature is one of possible chaos, since man is governed by the Law of Nature, and only by violating the Law, and the lack of an authority where man can seek redress, will the State of Nature turn chaotic.

Both agreed that men left the State of Nature to form a body with its members bound by a social contract, where every one agreed to submit themselves to an authority that they will designate. This body is the government – which a part of it can make laws, another part enforces them, and another part interprets them in case of disputes. When this social contract is violated, the two thinkers parted in opinion: Hobbes believe in the absolutism of the contract – there is no turning back. To Locke, once the government has exceeded its grip and threatens the people, the people has the right to dissolve the contract (which means dissolving the government) and enter into another one.

John Locke saw certain conditions wherein possible violations of the social contract may happen, and he thought of a way for the people to get out of those conditions. His ideas inspired democratic revolutions, most notably the American Revolution. And to me, this is one justification why EDSA had to happen in 1986.