Key Takeaways

  1. Contract theory explains authority: The State's power arises from an agreement between individuals and the State, justified by voluntary consent.
  2. Hobbes feared lawlessness: The state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"—citizens accept sovereignty to escape chaos.
  3. The Hobbesian contract demands total sacrifice: Citizens surrender almost all power to the sovereign in exchange for protection and survival.
  4. Locke critiqued absolute authority: Granting total power means escaping minor dangers only to be devoured by unrestrained rulers.
  5. Authority rests on vulnerable desperation: Both order and freedom represent painful trade-offs in the social contract.

The Untidy Business of Thinking - Part 2: The Price of Peace: Why We Submit to Authority

The moment people engage in collective life, they encounter the necessity of power. Society imposes numerous demands upon its members. States collect taxes, require military service, and restrict freedoms in ways private citizens cannot. This raises a central philosophical problem: How does the State acquire the authority to justify such sweeping demands over its citizens? Determining the source and scope of legitimate political authority has occupied thinkers for centuries.

The Agreement to Obey

One of the oldest answers is the contract theory, which posits that authority arises from an agreement between individuals and the State. This agreement justifies the State’s power because individuals voluntarily consent to it in return for substantial benefits. The classic Greek dialogue Crito, written by Plato (born circa 427 BC), explores this concept through Socrates’ personal dilemma. Socrates, facing execution, refuses his friends’ plan to bribe the guards and flee Athens.

He argues that escaping would be fundamentally wrong because it would violate his agreement with the State. The Laws and Constitution of Athens, personified in the dialogue, challenge Socrates directly. They claim Socrates implicitly entered into a contract by living in Athens for 70 years as an adult and never choosing to leave. By staying, he gave his clear, voluntary consent to the institutions of Athens.

The State, acting like a parent or creator, claims that it made Socrates who he is. Therefore, he is bound by its wishes and possesses no right of retaliation against it. Furthermore, the Laws warn that if private individuals ignore court decisions, the entire legal system and the State itself could collapse. Socrates’ refusal to escape rests on the moral argument: “What would happen if everybody behaved like that?”. His view suggests that the State’s claim on the individual can be nearly total.

The Horror of Lawlessness

Not all contracts are born of calm reflection; often they emerge from terror. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) developed his famous political theory in the aftermath of the English Civil War. Hobbes felt that this catastrophic conflict taught necessary lessons about the immense power required to maintain order. He designed his political philosophy to defend government strong enough to maintain peace.

Hobbes required his citizens to imagine the time before any social arrangements existed: the “state of nature”. In this pre-contractual situation, lawlessness prevails, and individuals face continual fear of attack, robbery, and murder. Hobbes defined life in this chaotic condition as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. To escape this lawlessness, individuals voluntarily contract to accept a sovereign authority.

The main benefit citizens demand from the sovereign is the preservation of life and the organization of defense against external threats. Citizens hand over almost total power to the sovereign (a person or body). The sovereign, having full powers, may do anything deemed necessary to protect citizens from each other. Hobbes stipulated that this sovereign can commit no injustice, as all actions are performed with the presumed consent of the contracting parties.

The Price of Absolute Order

This Hobbesian contract demands immense individual sacrifice for the sake of survival. Citizens owe the sovereign complete obedience. Resistance is justified only if the sovereign directly threatens the citizen’s life, since protecting life was the original reason for the contract. This totalitarian conception assigns the State power over almost all aspects of individuals’ lives.

John Locke (1632–1704), writing less than 50 years after Hobbes, critiqued this extreme position. Locke argued that men enter society not just to protect their lives, but also to enjoy various liberties. He worried that granting the ruler total authority meant individuals only avoided “pole-cats, or foxes” (minor dangers) to be devoured by “lions” (an unrestrained sovereign made “licentious by impunity”). Locke suggested that Hobbes’s arguments went further than justified, driven by the desperation for order observed during wartime.

Ultimately, the philosophical debate about political authority centers on the painful trade-off between order and freedom. Both Plato and Hobbes illustrate that submission to authority is an attempt to recover from the crisis of self-awareness and the ensuing chaos of choice and lawlessness. Whether defined by tacit consent or sheer necessity, the power of the State is secured by the vulnerable individual’s desperate need for stability.