Throughout their writing, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and J.S. Mill hold differing views on freedom. At the same time, each highlights different impediments to freedom. In this paper, I argue that the obstacles to freedom that they see leads to different ideas of freedom and subsequently divergent ideas concerning the role of government and society in cultivating these freedoms. Hobbes holds to freedom as the right to the simple preservation of one’s life, while Locke extends this idea to include the protection of liberty and property as well. J.S. Mill goes far beyond these two thinkers to include the freedom from the tyranny of the majority, and specifically, the oppression of tradition and culture. According to Hobbes, the main hindrance
…show more content…
He compares absolute power to being at war, saying, “He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him” (279). In the state of war that comes from arbitrary power, man’s preservation is put in jeopardy because with that power comes the ability to take away his life, when the ruler pleases. Being under the absolute power of another not only takes away the control over one’s life, but also the control over one’s property in the form of liberty and estate. Because of this, Locke implies that being under arbitrary power is worse than being in the state of nature. If subjects were to “put a force into the Magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them: this was to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature” (359). In the state of nature, it is one man against one man, but if a sovereign has absolute power, it becomes one man against many men who are under one man. For this reason, Locke says that it is better for someone to be “exposed to the arbitrary power of 100,000 single men” than to be “exposed to the arbitrary power of one man, who has the command of 100,000” (360). From the point of view of John Locke, arbitrary power is the greatest impediment to
He compares absolute power to being at war, saying, “He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him” (279). In the state of war that comes from arbitrary power, man’s preservation is put in jeopardy because with that power comes the ability to take away his life, when the ruler pleases. Being under the absolute power of another not only takes away the control over one’s life, but also the control over one’s property in the form of liberty and estate. Because of this, Locke implies that being under arbitrary power is worse than being in the state of nature. If subjects were to “put a force into the Magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them: this was to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature” (359). In the state of nature, it is one man against one man, but if a sovereign has absolute power, it becomes one man against many men who are under one man. For this reason, Locke says that it is better for someone to be “exposed to the arbitrary power of 100,000 single men” than to be “exposed to the arbitrary power of one man, who has the command of 100,000” (360). From the point of view of John Locke, arbitrary power is the greatest impediment to