There's some noteworthy overlap between the discussion of the "state of nature" and how this leads to the formation of a government with sovereign authority in Hobbes's Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise on Government.  One of the big differences between these authors, however, concerns the extent to which they are willing to accept the prospect of a legitimate rebellion against a corrupt government.  

I would argue that a substantial source of this difference can be traced back to another difference between Hobbes and Locke - whether or not they think that there are "laws of nature" that dictate how humans ought to act and are applicable to humans in the "state of nature."  Hobbes seems to think that such laws do not have any meaningful role to play in the "state of nature" without a sovereign to enforce them, Locke seems to think they do have a meaningful role to play, and that anyone can enforce these laws.

Which of these two views do you take to be more correct, and why?  Is the only meaningful rule of law one that is enforceable by some sovereign authority of the state, or do the laws of nature that govern human interactions with each other have force even outside of the construction of a "commonwealth" or "civil government?"  

Reflection Response Draft 4

     When one considers the mere face value of the phrase “legitimate rebellion against a corrupt government” it doesn't pose much of a dilemma. Bad leaders need to be replaced, and systems that are failing to meet a desired goal should be restructured. If a majority of a commonwealth's subjects are dissatisfied with their government, then common sense indicates that there is a problem. So they should fix it, right?

     But not so fast‒ who decides (or defines) corruption? If a society has vested a sovereign individual or party with its trust, and granted them power to make decisions and take actions on its behalf, isn't that a binding contract; in fact isn't the sovereign the equivalent of the people, and rebellion on a par with societal suicide? Thomas Hobbes thought so. “Leviathan” being a strange choice of metaphor for government notwithstanding, in that work he lists no less than nineteen laws of nature; laws which he later asserts must be enforced by an authority that cannot be questioned.

     When philosophy addresses the nature of such sociological issues, it becomes quickly apparent that the “devil is in the details.” Humans can be very impulsive and reactionary, considering their relatively recent evolution and emergence from a mostly lawless prehistory. Coming to terms on how to control any collective body of humanity is a story encompassing thousands of years, and many hundreds of nations, forms of government, conflicts, coups, and wars. We can never completely agree on anything‒ at best we agree to disagree civilly. This seems to be at the core of Leviathan's anatomy: surrendering the full benefit of the One for the sake of the Many, and never relenting in that principle.

     As referenced above, agreement is a difficult enterprise between parties. We should not be surprised that philosophers are no different. John Locke takes a far more individualistic stance in his Second Treatise of Government. While also conceding the need for rule of law, the tables are turned in terms of power. For Locke, the ruler (“king” often in the text) is the people's servant.

“I tell the people that they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and that they may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their law-officers, when they invade their properties contrary to the trust put in them.” It sounds like a recipe for an uprising. But it's more subtle.

     I made an attempt to put these opposing viewpoints into a modern setting in the class discussion, focusing on who should enforce the laws of a society, and when exceptions might be appropriate. But it occurs to me how timeless the problem is; it's been the eternal struggle, hasn't it? Hobbes and Locke lived in the time of monarchies, and felt these pangs perhaps more acutely than we do in a democracy.

     Still, we see in present day how large the rift between Left and Right has grown, and constant debate about what our government's role is and what liberties we have as individuals. We see some who are actually in authority abusing that privilege, using deadly force by default rather than by discretion. It seems apparent to me that while there is much wisdom to be learned from the discourses of Hobbes, Locke, and company, that wisdom so far is still only enjoyed by a thoughtful minority of observers.