PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS OF
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
Topic #3
Study Guide Questions
• Cars and trucks used to emit large quantities of pollutants, resulting
in air pollution that was both unpleasant and unhealthful. In the
1970s, it became possible to reduce such pollution greatly by
installing fairly inexpensive pollution-control devices on car and truck
engines. Suppose in fact that everyone prefers (a) the state of
affairs in which everyone pays for and installs the devices and the
air is clean to (b) the state of affairs in which no one pays for and
installs the devices and the air is polluted. Would (almost) everyone
voluntarily install the devices? Would a law requiring everyone to
install the devices pass in a referendum?
• On the whole human existence is happier and more prosperous if
people are willing to undertake productive, future-oriented,
“investment” activities — that is, to undertake burdensome and
unpleasant activities today that can provide rewards for tomorrow,
e.g., to clear and cultivate land that can provide food later. Under
what conditions are people more or less likely to undertake such
activities?
• Governments impose taxes on people, stop people from doing some
things they want to do, and make people do other things they don’t
want to do. Can this be justified? If so, by what kind of argument?
Anarchy
• Anarchy (literal meaning): the state of affairs in which
there is no government, i.e.,
– no (man-made) law governing human affairs and,
more specifically
•
•
•
•
no legislature to make laws;
no executive to execute laws;
no court system to apply laws;
no police to enforce laws.
• Anarchy (common connotation): social chaos, disorder,
violence, plunder, etc.
Normative vs. Empirical Statements
• Normative: what ought to be
• Empirical: what actually is
• The political philosophy of anarchism makes this
normative claim: There ought to be no governments.
• However, most political theorists (and most ordinary
people) would make the following empirical claim:
– Anarchy (in its literal sense) produces anarchy (in the sense of
its common connotation).
• Three different disciplines:
– Physics (like other natural sciences) is strictly empirical.
– Ethics (or moral philosophy) is strictly normative.
– Political theory/science (and social science generally)
distinctively mix empirical and normative elements.
Legitimacy of Governments
• A government is normatively legitimate if the people over
which it claims authority ought (according to some
normative political philosophy or doctrine) to obey its
rules/laws.
– According to anarchism, no government is normatively
legitimate.
• A government is empirically legitimate to the extent the
people over which it claims authority actually believe that
they ought to obey its rules/laws.
– Even an (honest) anarchist would agree that the U.S.
government has a relatively high degree of empirical legitimacy
(unfortunately, given his normative views) .
• A side point: a government effective to the extent that the people
over which it claims authority actually do obey it rules/laws.
– Otherwise, it is a “failed state” producing anarchy.
Divergent Theories of Normative Legitimacy
• The Divine Right of Kings: kings are authorized to rule
on earth by God, which makes their rule legitimate.
– “Delegation from above”
– Rebellion against the king is rebellion against God.
• Consent of the Governed: legitimate governments are
authorized to rule by the people over which they rule.
– “Delegation from below”
• Governments by their nature impose rules, prohibit
activities, conscript people, levy taxes, and generally
force people to do things they would not voluntarily do.
– So we may have a paradox of consent: why would people
consent to have rules, prohibitions, taxes, etc. imposed on them?
– Answer: because the alternative (anarchy) is worse.
Social Contract Theory
• England during 1649-1700 was in a era of revolution,
regicide, civil war, and political disorder.
– Claims of divine right had largely lost their
persuasiveness.
• Political philosophers, notably Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke, sought a rational basis for legitimate government.
• Their basic argument:
– social contract theory (“consent of the governed”)
The State of Nature
• Both Hobbes and Locke begin with a “thought
experiment.”
– They imagine a state of nature, i.e., the complete
absence of political institutions and laws.
• This is a state of “natural liberty.”
• Locke: To understand political power aright, and derive it
from its original, we must consider what estate all men
are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to
order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and
persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of
Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will
of any other man.
Consequences of a State of Nature
• Locke also takes note of the paradox of consent: If man in the state
of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his
own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to
nobody, why will he part with his [natural] freedom, this empire, and
subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power?
• But as Locke immediately adds: To which it is obvious to answer,
that though in the state of Nature he hath such a right, yet the
enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the
invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his
equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice,
the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe,
very insecure.
• The state of nature is simply another term for anarchy in its literal
sense.
• However, both Locke and (especially) Hobbes further argue that
anarchy has bad consequences (disorder, insecurity, etc.).
Hobbes: The State of War
• Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live
without a common power to keep them all in awe, they
are in that condition which is called war; and such a war
as is of every man against every man [in contrast to
international war].
– For war consists not in battle only, or the act of
fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to
contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore
the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of
war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature
of foul weather lies not in a shower or two of rain, but
in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the
nature of war consists not in actual fighting, but in the
known disposition thereto during all the time there is
no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.
Hobbes: The State of War (cont.)
• Why does the state of nature produce a such
state of war?
– NATURE hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and
mind as that . . . when all is reckoned together the difference
between man and man is not so considerable as that one man
can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may
not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the
weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by
secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the
same danger with himself.
– From this equality of ability arises equality of hope in the
attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the
same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they
become enemies; and in the way to their end . . . endeavor to
destroy or subdue one another.
Hobbes: The State of War (cont.)
– And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any
man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by
force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can so long
till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and
this is no more than his own conservation requires, and is
generally allowed.
– Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure in
contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which
they pursue farther than their security requires, if others, that
otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds,
should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be
able, long time, by standing only on their defense, to subsist.
• So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of
quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.
Hobbes: The State of War (cont.)
• The consequences of all this are disastrous.
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every
man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time
wherein men live without other security than what their own
strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In
such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit
thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no
navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by
sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and
removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of
the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no
society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of
violent death; and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short.
Hobbes: The Social Contract
• The solution to the state war is clear: a social contract or
covenant between every man and every other man, in
which everyone agrees to
– renounce their natural freedom, and
– authorize a single person (or perhaps a body of men) to act as a
governor to enforce a state of peace.
• The governor requires resources, needs to impose taxes, enforce
regulations, etc.
• Text of the social contract:
– I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to
this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to
him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.
The Social Contract (cont.)
• A social contract creates a Commonwealth or Leviathan:
– one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual
covenants one with another, have made themselves every one
the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of
them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common
defense.
• Note that the social contract is not
– between the people and the ruler, but
– among the people, who thereby authorize the ruler to rule.
• A commonwealth may be created by acquisition as well
as by institution.
Locke’s State of Nature
• Locke’s social contract theory is similar in basic structure
and logic, but differs importantly in detail.
• In Locke’s view, the state of nature is “inconvenient” and
does not promote safety and happiness, but it is not as
disastrous as Hobbes’ state of nature.
– People could do better (under a good government),
but they also could do worse (under a bad
government).
– So consenting to establish a government could make
people better but it could also make them worse off
(depending on the nature of the government).
Locke’s “Contingent Consent”
• To Locke, the wrong kind of government, e.g.,
– tyranny, or
– kleptocracy
is worse than no government at all.
Preferences for different situations
Hobbes
Locke
good government
good government
bad government
anarchy
anarchy
bad government
Locke’s Law of Nature
The state of nature has a [normative] law of nature to
govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is
that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that
being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.
Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station
willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not
in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of
mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take
away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life,
the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
– This law of nature is ascertainable by human reason.
Locke’s Law of Nature
• But while everyone (even in the state of nature) understands the law
of nature, this law of nature by itself does not offer people real
protection and security.
– The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths,
and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their
property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting.
• First, there wants an established, settled, known law, received and
allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong,
and the common measure to decide all controversies between
them.
• Secondly, in the state of Nature there wants a known and indifferent
judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the
established law.
• Thirdly, in the state of Nature there often wants power to back and
support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution.
– In the state of Nature every one has the legislative, judicial and
executive power of the law of Nature.
Locke’s Social Contract
• In Locke’s theory, rational people in the state of nature
will not agree to an social contract that (like Hobbes’
contract) sets no limits on the powers of the government.
• But they will agree
– to give up some (but not all) of their natural freedoms;
– to delegate some (but not all) powers to the government; and
– they thereby authorize the government to do some things (but
not other things).
• In general, they will consent to a limited government but
not an unlimited government (like Hobbes’ Leviathan).
Limited vs. Unlimited Government
• A limited [Lockean] government ought not (normative)
but in fact can (empirical) overstep its limits and “abuse
its powers.”
– In contrast, an unlimited [Hobbesian] government by definition
has no limits it can overstep.
• Therefore, a limited government should incorporate
“checks and balances” that will make it less likely to
abuse its power.
– In contrast, Hobbes wants no checks on Leviathan, as they
would impede its ability to enforce peace.
• If such checks are unsuccessful, and a limited government in fact systematically abuses its powers, the people
retain a right of revolution to overthrow the abusive
government and replace it with another.
– In Hobbes’ social contract, there is no right of revolution, as it
would take people back into a state of nature (and war).
Limited vs. Unlimited Government (cont.)
• A social contract establishing a limited government will
be relatively long and complicated. It must describe
– what specific powers are delegated to the government;
– what specific powers (or rights) are retained by the people;
– what the structure of the government is to be,
• and this structure may be made deliberately complicated so as to
incorporate “checks and balances,” and
– the procedures the government must follow its exercising its
limited powers (“due process of law”).
• Moreover, there will be inevitable ambiguity in the words
used to set these limits, such that reasonable people will
likely disagree on how they are to be interpreted.
• In contrast, a social contract establishing an unlimited
government can be short and sweet.