2. Views on government

Transcription

1 2. Views on government 1. Introduction Which similarities and differences prevail in the views on government the two prominent political theorists, Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith? That is what this study sets out to investigate. In doing so, firstly the views on government of the two theorists will be presented separately. Subsequently, Smith s and Hobbes views within the different aspects of the government will be compared and discussed in relation to each other. Lastly, the findings of the previous sections will be summarized in the conclusion. As the chosen assignment very specifically asks for the views on government of Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith, other theorists will not play a large part in this study despite their potential application in some aspects. However, when relevant a parallel to other theorists discussed during the course will be drawn. 2. Hobbes view on government To explain Thomas Hobbes view on government solely is somewhat difficult because his view on this is largely a consequence of his view on the nature of human beings. For Hobbes, the natural way of man is what he calls the State of Nature. In the State of Nature, there is no natural leader of society. It is every man for himself, and because no single man will have a strong physical advantage over everybody else, it implicates that if a person were to proclaim himself the leader over a given area, other people not happy with being lead by this person are still able to take him down. Therefore, in the State of Nature, instead of being able to build a prosperous future for society, people will be occupied preserving their lives, what Hobbes refers to as the Right of Nature. Constant fear and violence will prevail in this State. That is why Hobbes introduces his perception of the concept of a social contract. In Hobbes view, humans strive for honor and glory, things that cannot be achieved in chaotic surroundings such as in the State of Nature. Therefore, because the State of Nature does not fulfill the desires of the people, there is no other way out than to choose a Sovereign a government through a social contract. Seeing as everybody fears the punishment of law, social peace can finally be achieved, and people will accept and submit to the social contract because the state of nature is absolute miserable. No one will have any incentive to try and break the contract. 1

2 The Sovereign will act on behalf of the citizens, which can be explained by the relationship between people and Sovereign. Seeing as the Sovereign is a creation of the people, the Sovereign cannot punish his citizens because that would be like punishing himself. Likewise, the sovereign cannot be justly denounced or contradicted by the citizens, because then the citizens would really be contradicting themselves. Furthermore, the Sovereign is, naturally, sovereign, and therefore there can be no separation of powers in this type of government. In Hobbes view, the concept of a Sovereign can be different types of government, taking on the form of one person (monarchy), a few people (aristocracy) or many people (democracy). However, despite seeming fairly open- minded to the different types, Hobbes himself was in favor of absolutist monarchy, which might be attributed to the historical context of writing during the failed efforts of efficient governments in the course of the English Civil War. 3. Smith s view on government Despite the fact that Adam Smith spans all social sciences, he is best remembered today for his economic theory, and his economic viewpoints are to a large degree reflected in his views on other issues such as the government. For Smith, the creation of the government is by no means a conscious decision taken by the individuals in a society. Rather, the creation of a government is a natural process when inequality occurs. In Smith s Lectures on Jurisprudence, a publication created from notes of students attending his lectures on the topic of jurisprudence, he outlines the stages that mankind passes through over time. Smith names these steps as the hunting society, shepherding, agriculture and lastly commerce. In the hunting society, when property did not extend beyond possession, there was no need for a government, but starting with the shepherding age, the question of property came into the picture. The progress into the shepherding age and onwards stages leads to the occurrence of growing inequality among men. To prevent the poor from acquiring wealth that rightfully belongs to others by violent means, laws and government therefore became a necessity. Smith s view on human nature can especially be seen in his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In this, Smith advocates that people are naturally moral and feel compassion and sympathy for their fellow man. His well- known concept of the invisible hand implies that in pursuit of their self- interest, people s actions will benefit others. In the more specific question of how the government should act, Smith famously advocated a laissez-faire principle that implied the government largely leaving things 2

3 to themselves. Smith distinguished between productive and unproductive labor, the latter for example being functions such as the army and the sovereign, while he saw productive labor as something which added value to a product. A greater proportion of the population employed in productive labor leads to capital accumulation, which then again employs even more productive labor. A big government employs unproductive labor, and as a result, Smith believed the government should only serve the most necessary functions such as justice, defense, transport and primary education. 4. So how are they different? In describing their vision for the government, Hobbes and Smith cover many of the same aspects of what government is and how it came into being. But which differences and similarities are there in their views? Although not directly part of the view on the government, it is difficult to answer this question without firstly looking at the views on human nature because of the implications thereof. Thomas Hobbes prominent State of Nature concept obviously implies that conflict, fear and violence are part of the human nature. Thomas Hobbes view can, however, be seen as somewhat contradictory. Despite his idea that the ravaging State of Nature is the natural state for mankind, which is the view on human nature most often attributed to Hobbes, he also seems to think that the eventual establishment of a social contract also is a fairly natural step for people to take. For Smith, the fact that man is a moral being able to feel compassion and sympathy means that his nature is very different from the State of Nature that Hobbes sees. Men are not violent, oppressive creatures only acting in their own interest of surviving; they possess much better skills than that. The difference in views clearly illustrates the fact that the two lived in time periods on different sides of the Age of Enlightenment. Smith believes that man is skillful, whereas Hobbes sees humans as generally unreasonable creatures in the need of being governed. Why does their viewpoints on human nature matter? They matter when looking at the social contract establishing the government in both of their ideas. Because of Adam Smith s belief in mankind as reasonable, the social contract in his vision does not need to be anywhere near as strong as in Hobbesian theory. If the government were to disappear, society would not break down resulting in massive outbreaks of violence in people s efforts to preserve their lives. People have morals, and despite the government being an instance put into place to prevent the poor from attaining wealth from the rich by violent means, it is generally not natural human behavior to mistreat fellow men. 3

4 The differing ideas of human nature are then also reflected in the role of the government. Smith s laissez-faire approach illustrates the belief that let to themselves, people will act in society s best interests, whereas Hobbes all- mighty Sovereign is necessary to govern people strictly, the only way society will prosper. Moving on to the question of why governments were created in the first place, the views of the two theorists show both some similarities and differences. They are similar in that their views on the motives behind the establishment of the government are generally to avoid violence and social chaos, although to different degrees, done by establishing a framework of law. The fear of being punished will give people a fairly large incentive to not ravage or take possessions from their rightful owner, and so the establishment of a governing, juridical body in the view of both theorists leads to a more peaceful internal situation in society. However, with regards to how the governments were created, Smith and Hobbes exhibit more differing views. Hobbes sees the choice of giving a Sovereign limitless power as a quite conscious decision, a realization that this is the only way peace, prosperity, honor and glory can become reality, although as mentioned earlier there is really not that much of a choice. On the other hand, in his description of the different stages of societal progress, Smith reasons that government creation is an absolutely natural process of development of society, because this progress will automatically lead to greater inequality. Smith s view that government arises as a natural result of the development of certain new structures might be compared to what the more recent twentieth century writer, Norbert Elias, wrote on the natural civilizing process that one specific structure will lead to the need for another structure. Lastly, when comparing Smith s and Hobbes views on government, it is of course an integral aspect in whose interests the government acts. They both generally believe in a government which will act in the best interest of its citizens, despite their different views on how these interests will be achieved. For both theorists, governing a territory is not so much a question of being in and exercising power, but about keeping the society safe and prosperous. This puts the two in great opposition to for example Niccolo Machiavelli, whose work from 1513, Il Principe, predates the works of both Smith and Hobbes. Il Principe deals with how a prince maintains, increases and exercises power, all in his own interest, and despite it probably not being exactly what Machiavelli saw as the ideal way to govern, it is nevertheless a view on how to govern. The non- power focused views of Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith then seem to reveal a shift from that way of thinking. 4

5 5. Conclusion Although similar in some aspects, the overall views on government in Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith differ quite a lot. Hobbes believes in the Sovereign as a strong, dominant government, put into place because anything other than a Sovereign would not provide the necessary capacities for avoiding the State of Nature. Smith believes that a government providing the necessary minimum within certain functions is the way forward and what will yield the best results for all. So, in spite of sharing the view that the government is working in the interest of the people, the two share contrasting views when it comes to most other aspects. But what lies behind these differences? It seems that the differing views on human nature are largely reflected in their preferred governments. Hobbes sees human nature as violent and anarchic, thus leading to the need of a rather absolutist government that will keep people under control, whereas Smith sees men as moral beings that do not need the government to guide them. The views on human nature that drive the views on government then reflect a change in ideas after the Age of Enlightenment; with Hobbes seeing the unreasonable, animal- like man and Smith seeing the compassionate, enlightened man. 5