Renaissance Thinkers

The conceptualization of civil society by Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau

differ in ways that affect liberties and distribution of power. While many of each individual

arguments are convincing on their own, none have a comprehensive approach that seem to be

able to hold its own in practical application. However, as we observe the modern world today,

it is clear that a combination of these proposed methods to organize civil society endures while

facing the harsh tests of reality, escaping the perfect world of theory.

In the Prince, Machiavelli presents a ruler who is ruthless, which in turn makes him

efficient. The prince is primarily concerned with assuring stability and sovereignty of his

reign and society while he rules. The ruler murders, lies, and steals in order to accomplish

what must be done. "Leader virtue" is what Machiavelli presents as "the ability of the prince

to carve from disorder and uncertainty of fortune a political order that incurs on people's

continuing support for the prince's regime."(87) It is interesting that "it is not always

possible or likely that the prince can sustain moral values traditionally considered

essential in normal, day-to-day settings...the science of Machiavelli is derived from a study

whose main objective is to acquire power and to use it to create orderly societies that

serve people's vital interests."(87) In this way, the famous phrase, "the ends justifies the

means" derives its significance. The ruler can use whatever tactics and methods to

accomplish his goals as long as his society is kept happy and their material possessions safe.

With the ruler not bound by high sounding ideals or contraints, he is rendered flexible that

empowers him to be able to control many aspects of his society to keep it stable and secure.

Departing from the cold, practical, and high-ideal-lacking method of Machiavelli, in

Hobbes's central thoery, we are introduced to the ideals of liberalism and individual freedom.

Before describing Hobbes' specific concept of how civil society must be, understanding his

reasoning to reach such a conclusion is vital. Let us observe Hobbes' view of human nature

in a society-less world. Essentially, all individuals in such a conditions have theoretically the

ability to do anything that they saw fit, which includes stealing and murdering in order to obtain

what one needs in order to survive. It is clear that in this state, chaos, or "condition of

war,"(127) would ensue with no sense of peace or stability. Hobbes essentially is commenting

that human nature tends to be destructive when left unchecked, and it is from this very notion

that he develops the idea of a "consented" monarch or an aristocracy(or any institution of

governing power) that would watch over human activity on the whole to protect from themselves

the destructive consequences of possessing unlimited freedom.

However, the very curious and interesting problem of Hobbes's approach to solve this

problem of human nature seem to have the certain potential of undermining its own cause. This

is because the "consented" governmental power, once given this official consent by the people,

is forever and absolutely invested with this power which cannot be taken away. A monarch with

unchecked power is certainly bound to turn into a tyrant eventually, whether is be a disinterest in

protecting civil society or a disinterested heir to the throne. And we can make this conclusion

because Hobbes himself claimed that once humans are given unlimited freedom, or in our

monarch's case, unlimited power, humans will use it eventually to cause destruction. "The main

problem with Hobbes's argument is that Hobbes's concept of civil society embraces a very

powerful state that threatens the freedom that his view of civil society defends."(127) Hobbes's

creates a solution to a problem and then destroys it!

Thankfully, Lockes argues against this paradoxical approach of Hobbes, while

maintaining the virtue of natural rights and liberty. Locke proposed a state in which powers

would be separated--the federal, legislative, and executive branches would be created in order

keep a system of balances that would secure the safety of the people's liberty. Delue states

that, "the difference between Hobbes and Locke on this issue is that the latter did not see this

power [Hobbes's king] as placed, without limits, into the hands of the executive."(153) Locke

specifically