A Philosophical Conversation

There are many diverse views of human nature in philosophy, and from them come an equally varied amount of political systems. Today three of the most famous political theorists, whose views have been essential building blocks upon which the governments of the Western world are built, have gathered to discuss their ideal political systems and the forces of humanity which drive them into being. Thomas Hobbes first published his famous treatise The Leviathan in 1651, in which he sets out his view of human nature and the ideal political system which will result from it. Jean Jacques Rousseau followed with his most famous work, The Social Contract, first published in 1762, a political treatise which basks in the enlightenment and rejects much of his predecessor’s philosophy. Finally, James Madison, the man responsible in large part for the American system of government, wrote his Federalist Papers in the late 1780’s, drawing upon ideas from his famous forebears to craft a new political system, which has proved remarkably durable and resistant to sweeping changes, and under which we live today. These three men will discuss their views, and we will observe and learn from their arguments and engagement.

To start then: the three will commence with a discussion of their view on the role of citizens in the government, and Rousseau has begun with the statement “…as soon as any man says of the affairs of the state, what does it matter to me? the state may be given up for lost.” Rousseau explains that the state is composed of the joint input of its entire citizenry, who must regularly gather to decide what is best for their society, and voice their opinion of this good. This constitutes the general will, and in so doing it the people form a sovereign, and thus legislate themselves. Rousseau goes on to say that in his conception of a state, the people will generally agree on the good, and eventually will come to recognize it to the point that decisions approach unanimity. He argues that if people elect representatives to legislate for them or if they merely stop attending out of apathy, then the general will is lost, as is the freedom found in the citizens as sovereign, and thus the justification for a just political society to exist. He does suggest that people will need an executive “lawgiver” to enact the laws which the people have decided upon, and a judiciary to help in situations where the government and the people have reached a disagreement, or individual people differently interpret laws, but the fundamental power to legislate must remain with the people en masse.

Hobbes appears derisive of Rousseau, and is mocking him, asking him if he has discovered a new species to populate his state, or if he plans on living in a city of angels. Hobbes explains that people will in no way approach decision making as a way to enhance their community, but rather act in a self-interested manner to further their own agendas. People are driven towards a material need to enhance themselves at all others expense, and will do so if there is a reasonable expectation they will be able to accomplish it without adverse consequences. Rousseau’s system is a perfect one for any person who wishes to take advantage of others, and Hobbes assures Rousseau it would not in practice work, but rather is incredibly unstable and prone to violence and abuse. Better, says Hobbes, to place all power in one person, whom he has termed a leviathan, and thus escape the uncertainty and instability of sharing power. In fact, Hobbes says, the citizens have no place at all in deciding how their society should be governed, aside from their initial decision to voluntary give the leviathan the power to govern them, and outside of defending themselves against execution. The most stable government structure, which will ensure the security of people and limit their ability to act in any selfish way which would return society to chaos, is one with an single absolute authority governing as a monarch, with the ability to both legislate, interpret, and enforce the laws.

Madison appears skeptical of both men, and thinks they have crafted equally flawed political systems. Responding to Hobbes, he appears a bit concerned at his unconcern for the individual and his willingness to trample upon what Madison terms their inalienable rights. He quotes Rousseau in saying that life is tranquil in dungeons, but that people are not happy there. However, he is not enamored with Rousseau either, and makes many of the same criticisms as Hobbes has made. People will tend to act in their self-interest, Madison asserts, and one cannot form a government based entirely on the concept that people can behave as rational citizens, concerned only with the common good, regardless of the adverse effects which they themselves may experience in response. Madison explains that in Rousseau’s system factions will arise, and that in practice the governing body will be composed of different groups arguing for their own conceptions of the good, which will likely be intertwined with self-interest. Thus Rousseau’s system will be unstable, as Hobbes has pointed out; prone to violence and abuse.

The speakers have became quite sidetracked by this discussion of factions, with Madison summing up his interpretation of his peer’s theories thusly; “There are… two methods of removing the causes of factions: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence (here Hobbes nods happily); the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” Rousseau explains that in his view the second one is quite close to what will occur in his state, but that citizens must only exercise this sense of unanimity when engaged in the legislating process. Also Rousseau says, he has placed strict limits on the size and diversity of his state for just this reason, and he candidly admits his ideas may not work well in a larger or more diverse state; furthermore, he asserts, people must be well educated. At this point he gets up and begins passing out copies of Emile to the audience, while Madison attempts to respond. Rousseau’s ideas are quite impossible, he says; man is fallible, unequal, and will always seek to advance different notions of the good. To say that something as subjective as a proper education will make them otherwise is completely asinine. Hobbes merely explains once again that factions cannot form if the government keeps a close enough watch over the people that they cannot exercise any political activities, and reasserts that stability and security are the most important products a government must provide, and that its people cannot ask for more.

Madison is now fleshing out his answer to the original question of people’s participation in government. Citizens, he says, must elect their own representatives, who are likely to be the wisest among them, and in so doing hope to control the power of subversive factions; in short, as there is no just way to prevent the causes of factions (Hobbes throws up his hands in disgust here), one must seek to control the effects. This is achieved by setting checks and balances upon the government, though different divisions. First, the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive must be held by different people, with complete separation between so they cannot influence each other. Here Madison turns to Rousseau, who has returned to his seat after running out of copies of Emile, and confronts him on the size of his state, asking him how in the contemporary world he could realistically expect to form a state in which the people are so similar, and the size is so small. He doesn’t wait for a reply, but explains that in his republic, the larger size and diversity is an asset, not a liability, and that a federalized form of government will ensure that minority voices are not trampled over, but rather given a pedestal upon which they can give voice to their concerns. Rousseau’s system, asserts Madison, will fall victim to the tyranny of the majority, whilst Hobbes is a simple tyranny; neither is suited to forming a just and effective government. He appears to have won the crowd over, and is receiving standing applause.

At this point questions are being asked, and the theorists are asked to flesh out some justifications and underlying foundations for their theories. They are asked their ideas concerning human nature, and to explain how their political systems have grown out of this interpretation. Hobbes, eager to regain some momentum, quickly responds. We must not think humans have any inherent goodness, he says, quickly gaining the crowds attention. Although not everyone is evil, and not everyone will act only in their self-interest, a great enough number are and will that it is rational to conceive of humanity as self-interested, and to base our actions upon that concept. At the base of this self-interest is a quest for individual survival, and all of our actions come from that concept. Furthermore, we are all roughly equal, and the greatest one of us is not so much greater than the weakest that we are immune to harm from that person. This leads to a concept of original society, a state of nature, as Hobbes terms it, where people each act according to their own survival instinct, and each has an incentive to distrust and preemptively engage another, in order not to be a victim. Their lives are “…solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and the clear conclusion he draws is that any anarchic structure of society would be in effect a constant state of war. People will thus form a covenant, voluntarily giving up their own power to the leviathan, and giving him absolute control over the formation of society, to do as he pleases as long as security is maintained. In this way, and this way only, will peace be maintained and the awfulness of the state of nature escaped. The crowd is hushed, and Hobbes looks triumphant. He asserts that his prison does not look so bad, now that people understand the alternative.

Rousseau jumps into the quiet with a rejection of Hobbes’ view. People, he says, are by nature inclined towards two things. First, they look towards their own survival, and secondly they have a natural pity towards their fellow man. In his theory of the state of nature, people begin isolated and alone, and are moved only by basic physical needs. They are hunter-gatherers, and are limited enough in population that there is no scarcity, in contrast to Hobbes conception. They are also motivated towards pity of their fellow man, and are naturally disinclined to engage in violence or aggression towards him. However, this pity eventually leads them to form societies wherein they can help each other and more efficiently allocate their efforts. Living in society leads to emotional attachment between people, and thus to comparisons and value-setting, and people begin to view each other as having worth and status. People, once having become dependant on one another both physiologically and materially, cannot return to the original state of nature, and no longer live merely according to their natural needs. People then become dependant on material status, namely property, and economic inequality leads to political systems where the rich seek to perpetuate their wealth and keep the poor from changing the status quo. This leads to a political system based upon the rule of the strongest. Rousseau points out that Hobbes’ justification is merely a perpetuation of this political idea, and has been used by those in authority to maintain it at the people’s expense. That is why, he argues, his form of government is so important to enact. Having lost their natural freedom to the chains of materialism and wealth, which is expressed through the unjust political society they live in, people can only find freedom in the expression of themselves through the general will, and thus return to a state where they are self-governing, as they were in the state of nature. He notes here that it is important to realize that in the state of nature they were governing themselves according to physical laws, while in the just civil society they are governing themselves according to reason.

Madison has been sitting quietly for quite some time now, absorbing his colleagues present their contrasting views. Once again, he says, his colleagues have each presented flawed arguments; while each has captured a part of the truth, they have not managed to explain the complexity of human nature, and have each arrived at flawed conclusions. First of all, he says, they are both wrong in their assertion of natural equality. Man is clearly unequal in any number of ways, ways which are important and which directly affect their ability and method of interaction with political society. Some men are wiser than others, some are more likely to put their own good first, some to put the general will first. What is important is that they are all equal before the laws of society, and that no man can claim immunity from the law based on right of birth or supply of gold, including the executive, a point upon which he and Rousseau are in agreement (Hobbes, however, grimaces in clear disagreement). Madison agrees with Hobbes that man is by nature self-interested enough that he cannot be expected to enact laws according to an abstract general will, and explains that the government, as he previously observed, is created to ensure that this self-interest is controlled. He does agree that man has an innate self-worth, a right to that equality before the law, and a right to express their differing opinions. Like Rousseau, he sees property rights as the founding justification of government, one which has led men to engage in forming factions to protect their interests, and which has led to different classes, namely the property-owning and the proletariat. Since men are naturally unequal, they will necessarily acquire property unequally, which is just and which the government must protect; once again, what is important is their equality before the law.

Madison says his theory of human nature is the accurate one, and points to the success of his system as opposed to Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ ones, each of whose he once again critiques. The best form of government, he says, is one in which people’s self-interest is allowed to drive society, not one in which they must completely subjugate it to beneath reason. Better to let the government attempt the creation of laws concerning the good, and let the people engage in their selfish activities as long as they remain within this framework of laws. This political system will recognize man is not to be trusted to act in a moral fashion. Madison now quotes another of his colleagues whom he was known to disagree with, Thomas Jefferson, as having once said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Man then, is bound by a web of regulations and norms which govern his behavior, and he is expected to make his way within them as best he can, putting himself first, and the community a distant second. Neither Hobbes nor Rousseau appears at all convinced, but then, as they are no longer living, how could they be?