As two of the three most renowned social contract theorists in the field of political philosophy, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau both emphasize the significance of freedom and reason as essential aspects of a civilized society. The topic of private property and government structures is what differentiates between Locke’s and Rousseau’s social contract theory in the Second Treatise of Government and the Discourse on Inequality, respectively.
Locke and Rousseau both mentioned the state of nature and the state of war in their social contract theories. The state of nature, which both Locke and Rousseau seem to have similar definitions of, is that all men possess God-given natural rights and perfect freedom that allows them to do whatever they desire. Both of them also seem to agree upon that the state of nature is this state of peace and equilibrium while the state of war is when the state of nature is breached. However, their ideas of what entails the state of nature and the state of war are very different from each other. Locke believes that the state of nature is maintained by the law of reason as opposed to piety. Or, an eye for an eye in layman’s terms. As a result, the state of war, according to Locke, is when the state of nature is disrupted and shifts to violence. Since Locke argues that life, liberty, and estate are the fundamental rights of citizens entered into a social contract, the continuance of the state of war would be slavery. The violation of the right to the estate is what Locke believed to render an individual a slave. Slaves, according to Locke, are not regarded as part of a civilized society due to the lack of private property. I agree, to a certain extent, that if the right to property is violated, then the state of nature becomes the state of war because not all individuals possess their fundamental rights. However, I am not completely convinced that a person without private property is not considered an agent in a society bound by the social contract. Rousseau argues that the state of war would be class warfare rather than enslavement and he believes it can be easily prevented–through the establishment of a sovereign and the general will to aim for the common good.
Another distinction between Locke’s and Rousseau’s social contract theory is property. As aforementioned, Locke believes the right to own property is a crucial part of the individuals’ fundamental rights. He is a strong advocate of private property that he even argued citizens are entitled to rebel against the government if the said right is violated. Essentially, Locke suggests that any individual could claim unowned land as their own if their purpose is to transform “useless materials of nature” into “valuable commodities.” This sounds somewhat meritocratic as the contribution of labor is associated with ownership. Rousseau, on the contrary, despises the idea of private property. He strongly believes that the emergence of inequality is the direct result of the difference in ownership among citizens. Rousseau even referenced Adam and Eve’s sin by eating the apple from the tree of knowledge as the reason why private property creates conflict, leads to corruption, and would ultimately result in society being in unnecessary constant competition. In other words, the difference between the role of private property in both theories is that private property is a preexisting condition to Locke’s social contract while private property is the reason why Rousseau’s social contract was created.
It seems like Locke and Rousseau differed drastically on ideas regarding the forms of government. Rousseau, perhaps being born in the city of Geneva, is convinced that direct democracy allows for the maximization, by the government, of liberties for its citizens. Although he did admit that this would not work in larger states, Rousseau voiced his concern over the adequacy of representative democracy. Locke, as expected, advocates for representative democracy due to its effectiveness, in terms of establishing law and order within a society, as a means to protect individuals’ fundamental rights, especially to the right to property ownership.
On the responsibilities of the government, Locke argues that the fundamental aim and responsibility of the government is to provide protection to private property and the rights to ownership. Protection is achieved through laws and legislatures to secure said rights for citizens to be able to obtain private properties. The establishment of law is an essential aspect of Locke’s theory since it could potentially lead to class conflict and hence an imbalance of private properties owned by citizens. Locke claimed that it is the elites’ responsibility to establish laws so the common people are able to acquire property. By implementing laws, it prevents the economically advantaged group’s ownership of the majority of the properties in a society. Locke deems the class conflict as a violation of citizens’ natural rights as well as a threat to democracy. Since Rousseau claims representatives are incompatible with a democratic society and, therefore, the government should establish a sovereign to determine the general will. The government’s responsibility, as a result, is to distribute properties on the basis of the general will.
Locke, on the one hand, is more concerned with the citizens’ rights of individual liberty; while Rousseau’s ideas, on the other hand, have and a hint of utilitarianism and socialism–namely, one’s liberty could be taken away for the sake of the majority. The disagreement lies upon the scope in which the government is able and not able to do. It appeared that Locke emphasizes liberty while Rousseau emphasizes equality in a democracy even though both of them tried to depict the relationship between freedom and equality in a democratic society.