Freedom Isn’t Free

A Discussion of Hobbes and Rousseau’s Concept of Being Free

Both Hobbes and Rousseau argue that one becomes “more free” after leaving the state of nature behind and entering into political society.  However, these thinkers seem to conceptualize gains in freedom in radically different ways.  Hobbes suggests that greater political freedoms are won by submitting completely to a sovereign authority; Rousseau suggests that man becomes “truly the master of himself” by submitting to the General Will.  Explain the similarities and differences between their positions, and explain how submission can be said to lead to freedom of mastery. 

I am confused as to how Hobbes and Rousseau can argue that one becomes “more free” after leaving the state of nature and entering political society.  The discussions about the different views on freedom confuse me some.  How does being a member of civil society really make an individual “more free?”

Hobbes says that civil society is composed of people seeking glory and I agree with him.  He also says that the only way to become “more free” is by submitting to a sovereign authority. If society is composed of people seeking glory, why should we surrender our freedom to a sovereignty that may not have our best interests in mind, rather a sovereign entity that obtained his power through conquest and is only interested in glory and personal gains?  How can submitting make you “more free?”  In the state of nature there is no injustice because there is no law, according to Hobbes.  So, if there is no law or no injustice why are individuals not free—free from injustice and unjust laws, where as in civil society they may be subjected to unjust laws created by conquering men who may or may not have society’s best interest in mind?  Here is what I gather from Hobbes: he is only saying that one becomes “more free” after leaving the state of nature and entering civil society because in civil society, restrictions and laws are inflicted where restrictions and laws had not existed before, hence obeying those laws enables you to participate in the progress of civil society.  Not participating, according to Hobbes, is implicitly renouncing your freedom.  When Hobbes suggests that greater political freedom comes from submission, it seems to me as if he is talking pure politics.  Vote for Joe Schmoe and he will take care of you.  Or, be a productive citizen and the authorities will be kinder to society, rewarding its citizens. And, of course, according to Hobbes that is all people seek anyway, honor, glory or an advantage of some sort.

Rousseau, on the other hand, says that submitting to the General Will gives the people autonomy, and that sovereignty cannot be delegated or given away or it is immediately forfeit.  Submission to a sovereign authority does not equate freedom; rather it is forfeiture.  Rousseau seems to have more faith in people than Hobbes.  Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau believes that people are naturally good and it is entrance into civil society, i.e. the acquisition of property and having to defend that property, is what ultimately brings out the bad in people. Rousseau seems to be a bit more democratic than Hobbes, advocating the unified will or common good is what ultimately makes one living in a civil state “more free” than one living in the state of nature.  Although he thinks that property is sort of turns a good person into a bad person (individuals would not be able to abuse authority if it were not for the ownership/title of property, giving the assumption of authority over others), property can be used for good. Property can be used to create an egalitarian society where the wealth is distributed as evenly as possible.

Both Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s idea of being more free in civil society rather than the state of nature befuddles me.  While Hobbes says that the government creates laws and those laws are just because the government says so, Rousseau says that the government is but a mediator between a person in his active state and his passive state.  I was in a small community in Iraq where everyone took care of everyone.  Although the FOB (forward operating base) where I lived and worked was run by the military, the General Will of the community of that post was adhered to. The civilian entities and military entities shared in the governance of the FOB. The military provided protection, the civilians took care of everything else.  Granted, being in a warzone was a bit more primitive than living in the US, but the people of that community took care of each other.  In such an environment, there was a sense of amore propre, relying on each other, obeying the rules we set forth and fighting and dying for the General Will.  Being in Iraq felt more like rehab, being taken away from civil society and implanted in a more primitive setting.  While I was limited in my abilities, I gained an appreciation for life.  In Iraq, I gave up television, and the crappy music that I was accustomed to indulging in day after day.  Iraq was my return to the state of nature.  While I agree with Rousseau that individuals in their state of nature are limited, I disagree that it makes them less free. 

Now, I am home, in the US with unlimited access to resources, participating in my government’s election process and I feel less free than I did while in Iraq.  My choices for election of president are extremely limited and I am not satisfied with anyone running. I pay my taxes as I am supposed to, although I have not been able to find a job since I have been home. Either I receive a call back and am told during the interview that I am overqualified (the worst compound word in existence) or I do not receive a call back at all.  Work-study barely gives me enough money to buy a pair of socks.  When I walk to class in the morning, I run the risk of being shot, stabbed or robbed—not because I am in a warzone, but because I live in a free society.  I strive to complete my college education as to become a more productive member of society—as society that could care less about me.  Am I really “more free?” I do not feel free.  I feel trapped in one of Hobbes fantasy civil societies that he dreamed up during some bout of intellectual masturbation.

 In Iraq, I was in a much smaller community.  I was not allowed to go outside of the camp without an armored escort.  All of the rules, however, did not faze me.  I felt protected, safe, and as if there were others that cared about my well-being.  Here, as “free” as I am to do as I please, I feel more claustrophobic, as if I am trapped in a room with no door or windows, no light peering through. I have submitted to the government and I do not feel free at all.