The great anarchist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon announced, “The government of man by man is servitude.â€Â(Guérin 15) Since the times of the Ancient Greeks humans, as a whole, have consistently insisted on being ruled by a government. This insistence has led many theorists to prepare rationalizations for the state in hopes of justifying the oppression a government brings with it. However, these journeys of logical leaps and bounds have invariably been unable to fully and consistently justify any realistic form of government. In the end, it must still be asked if government is necessary, and if not what is a viable alternative. To attempt to solve this century old problem, it is necessary to first explore some political theorists who have attempted to justify government, then examine the general justifications for government and how both government and social anarchy fit within these justifications, and finally, with all exploration complete, conclude whether or not government finds itself legitimate in today’s day and age.

The three major contract theorists of the past are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. All three theorists look at the world in very different ways, and come to very different conclusions, but nonetheless all exist with reasons why people need government.

Firstly, Thomas Hobbes and his Leviathan present the bleakest approach to mankind. Hobbes’s State of Nature is brutish and short, described as “a state of war of all against all, punctuated by frequent violence, in which the participants correctly perceive themselves to be in constant danger.†(Kavka 2) Furthermore, within Hobbes’s Psychology of Man theory, he contends that people will practice limited altruism; in fact they will take any action that benefits them, no matter the affect on the survival of others. (Kavka 3)

As a response to this terrible life in the state of nature, Hobbes presents his social contract. In order to preserve oneself, one gives up all sovereignty to a single person, an “Absolute Sovereignâ€Â. According to Hobbes, when people enter into the commonwealth, they give up the ability to exercise all rights necessary to the success of the commonwealth. (Dixon 11) As a result, the Sovereign has absolute power within the government, although Hobbes does outline the specific powers, which the Sovereign possesses. First, the Sovereign has the right to permit or forbid the publication of opinion by speech or writing. Secondly, He may establish all laws, and may judge all issues of law violation through the third power. The Sovereign is also the commander-in-chief, with the ability to decide what military forces are necessary, how much to tax the people to fund the military, and supreme command over all actions. The Sovereign’s fifth power consists of the ability to appoint (and presumably dismiss) all officers of the commonwealth. The punishment power comes in sixth, where Hobbes not only gives the Sovereign the right to punish according to law, but also punish arbitrarily to encourage compliance. Lastly, the right of hierarchy-formation allows the Sovereign to bestow titles and rank upon subjects. (Goldsmith 24-25) It is with this social contract in mind that Monarchies attempted to justify their oppressive rule over the people. In fact, Hobbes was hired by the English monarchy to justify the rule that was in place in England at the time. Of course, this “theorist for hire†wasn’t perfect in his analysis of humankind and government, and there are certainly some major problems with Hobbes’s commonwealth.

Firstly, Hobbes explains that within the state of nature – of all against all – people will all of a sudden decide to meet with each other in order to create the “Leviathanâ€Â. However, when examining the Psychology of Man, it can be rightly assumed that, quite to the contrary, a person would quite quickly reject a meeting with others, in fear of their own life. Therefore, Thomas Hobbes succeeds not in setting up a commonwealth, but rather only formulating two distinct and incompatible theories, one of the natural condition and one of the commonwealth. Furthermore, while Hobbes does specify that everyone give up all rights to the Sovereign, he also picks out one specific right, which all people retain, even within the commonwealth. The right to self-preservation is paramount in Hobbes’s eyes, and therefore it could be contended that the Sovereign cannot make any decisions outright and on his own, due to the possibility that the decision will either be seen as a selfish one, putting the people’s lives in danger, or will be seen as a bad decision (with good intentions) which puts people’s lives in danger. Either way, the people will respond out of fear for their life, which they can legitimately do, and the Sovereign will cease to be. Thus, it can be rightly assumed that the only way for the Sovereign to survive is to make decisions that do not cause people to fear for their lives. Unfortunately, there is only one true way to make sure this is done, and that is to take actions that the people will the Sovereign to take, because only then can he be sure his actions are supported – and therefore not feared – by the people. This ruler, now acting upon the will of the people, effectively loses his title as “absolute Sovereignâ€Â, which was interpreted as “one who is master of all his subject-slaves; this absolute sovereign is the final decider of all questions in the commonwealth…†(Hampton 54) Thus, Hobbes does not formulate a Sovereign, and thus Hobbes’s commonwealth cannot ever guarantee peace – by his own logic of a democracy never guaranteeing peace. (Hampton 55) In the end, it would seem that Thomas Hobbes has not formulated a social contract theory, and therefore shouldn’t even be examined when attempting to justify modern governments, yet he will remain a force throughout this exploration.

The second great social contract theorist was Englishman John Locke. In Locke’s view, and quite contrary to Hobbes’s, the State of Nature is pretty good, but lacks a good guarantee of the preservation of natural rights. Specifically, “the state of nature is one of ‘uncertain peace’ in which people are able to follow the law of nature, but do not always do so, a state caused by the tension between man’s natural sociableness and his equally natural desire for personal happiness.†(Simmons 107) The main problem Locke points out with the state of nature, however, is that it lacks a common judge. Basically, he explains that so long as the law of the land is “an eye for an eyeâ€Â, than full peace will never be attained. He explains, “In every state of nature there will be the problem that men are judges in their own cases. Where there is no common judge with authority, men may be partial or vengeful in exercising their natural executive rights, possibly leading to feuds, conflicts, and war.†(Locke §13)

John Locke’s response to this undesirable state differs from Hobbes’s as well. His contention states that because man is naturally social, man comes together and fully consents to a government of the people, by the people and for the people. According to Locke, people enter into a government “for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it.†(Locke §95) Locke outlines, specifically, the justifications for government in this sentence. He points out that a government needs to provide security – both domestically and abroad. Furthermore, Locke – unlike Hobbes – contends that the government must be formed by consent and must continue to have consent to be legitimate. Once more, he explains, “Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent.†(Locke §95) While the Lockean view of government is much more understandable and gentler than the Hobbesian view, it most certainly has its own flaws.

The first flaw with Locke’s social contract is that it allows for some major abuses. As paternal power only asks a parent to guide their child, they are not necessarily required to protect their child from the abuses, like a 12-hour workday, of another member of society (Small 8, 28). This inability to secure the rights of children, among others, as we will examine later, leads Locke’s theory to a narrow application and a real inability to provide security to all of society. The second flaw with Locke’s argument, similar to the first, is that it does not guarantee rights to all people within society. Namely, he explains that since natural law is rational law, only rational people can be expected to follow it. This exception begins to rule people out of the system of natural law, specifically children and those effectively called “deficient in reason†or incompetents (Locke §57-60). It is thus inferred by A. John Simmons that if these people are not expected to follow the law of nature, then these people also lack any natural rights for the natural law to protect (Simmons 105). In the end, while Locke’s overall view on government actually has the logical consistency to work, the question arises of whether or not anyone would truly want it to work, because it seems that it would be less free than the state of nature, and that is the opposite of what Locke himself asks for. The government is supposed to provide security for people to exercise their natural rights, but – despite the fact that Locke may say children and “incompetents†don’t have natural rights – these alienated groups could express the equivalent of natural rights in the state of nature, but once in a government, they can no longer do so.

The third and final justifier of government that should be explored is French theorist Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Coming after Locke and Hobbes, Rousseau first presents harsh criticism of current societies, and then moves on to explore his view of how government and the commonwealth should work. The State of Nature, important to all of the social contract theorists, once again takes a new twist in the eyes of Rousseau. According to Rousseau, the Noble Savage – Rousseau’s natural man - is ignorant, but a person with good intentions. It is Rousseau’s contention that “man is originally without sin, that he comes into the world a free being, and that he is equipped with the capacity for decency, public-spiritedness, candor, authentic rationality.†(Schwartz 2) However, and this is where Rousseau’s criticism comes in, society corrupts the Noble Savage, not making him a ‘citizen’, but not leaving him in his natural state.

It is then, in Rousseau’s eyes, society’s job – truly the government’s job – to turn its half-citizens into full citizens. If the government fails to do this, than the government will inevitably fail, for as Rousseau proclaims, “What makes human misery is the contradiction which exists between our situation and our desires, between our duties and our inclinations, between nature and social institutions, between man and citizen.†(Rousseau 326) He goes on to explain that it is the government’s duty to “Give him entirely to the state, or leave him entirely to himself… but if you divide his heart, you will rip him apart; and do not imagine that the state can be happy, when all its members suffer.†(Rousseau 326) Therefore, when examining societies where this full integration does not occur and looking at all the problems in those societies, it would seem that Rousseau’s observations are correct. So, Rousseau’s criticism has been established and it seems quite valid, but when he moves on to explore the alternative, he begins to falter. Rousseau proposes that all people, at an early age, should be taught to regard their individuality only in its relation to the whole (Politique 307-308). By doing so, all people would, once mature, identify themselves exclusively as a part of the whole and therefore “will nothing contrary to the will of society (Politique 309)â€Â. This idea sounds great, but unfortunately is too great to be true. No time in the history of humankind has this full social integration ever occurred.

The problems with Rousseau’s utopia stem mostly from his paradoxical and contradictory way of reasoning, in which he effectively attempts to combine the two most important traditions of political thought, the cohesiveness of antiquity and the voluntarism of modernity (Riley 167). Firstly, Rousseau exerts that the creation of civil society must be a unanimous decision, and that these people, once making that decision, effectively surrender all rights to pursue private interests and instead lay themselves down at the doorstep of the General Will (Schwartz 4). Secondly, and in complete contradiction to this first statement, Rousseau explains, “A people always has a right to change its laws, even the best (Contract 57)†and also begs the question if a people “is pleased to do itself harm, who has a right to prevent it from doing so? (Contract 57)†These contradictions and impossibilities seem to leave Rousseau in the realm of social critic, removing him from the realm of true political theorist. Despite this, however, his views will continually be examined throughout.

Despite their differing views on human nature and the development of civil government, all three contract theorists and pretty much all other people who attempt to justify government use at least one of four general justifications. The first justification is that a government exists to provide defense in case of attack and to guarantee peace and security. (Sale 39) John Locke would wholly agree with this justification and only this justification. It is Locke’s contention that “In the social contract, man can exercise his rights freely in civil society without fear of interference or arbitrary reprisal. Man is happier when he is allowed to exercise his rights freely.†(Small 21) This justification is also the one presented by Thomas Hobbes, but he puts it more so on the side of internal conflict prevention: “The finall Cause, End or Design of men, (who naturally love Liberty, and Dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves.†(Hobbes 114)

The second major reason given by many for the justification of government is the development and regulation of an economy. In the state of nature, or anarchy, according to these people, the people are unable to take all necessary actions for a profitable economy. Thus, government comes into action to better the economy and thus people’s quality of life. (Sale 44) This argument feeds well into Hobbes’s claims about human nature being selfish, because people will not really work to ensure a good strong economy so long as they personally are profiting.

A third justification for the state comes in the form of public services. Those who support this claim would say that a society needs to provide certain services to its people, like clean water, and only the organization and hierarchy of a government can provide this. John Locke may agree with this, as he would say a government must be able to provide people with a better quality of life than that they would receive without the government, and public services are one way to ensure this. However, Locke was also a libertarian of sorts and therefore would reject large social intrusion upon the people. Jean-Jacques Rousseau would definitely agree with this, as he was a big supporter of the common good. If public services, which bettered the collective, could only be achieved with government, then he would wholly support a move away from the state of nature – so long as people actually became citizens.

The final justification of government for government is that only through government can social justice – civil rights and civil liberties – be provided and guaranteed. All three contract theorists would agree with this justification. Hobbes would explain that people would consistently interfere and violate others liberties and rights if no government were existent. Locke would contend that while Natural Law exists and does limit infringements, only the government can guarantee that infringements will not occur. Rousseau, on the other hand, would say that the ignorant Noble Savage would not intend to infringe the rights or liberties of another, but would do so, and only by formulating a government where citizens are fully integrated into the society can civil rights and liberties be guaranteed.

Thus, with those four general justifications for government framed, it is necessary to move on and examine how exactly modern governments meet these obligations, and if it is possible for a society without government, a society of social anarchy, could better meet the goals outlined above. First, let’s examine the obligation of defense and peace. While it is true that government has the ability to set up militaries and defenses against foreign invasion, the real question becomes how much of the conflict in the world is because of the development of governments, therefore providing the hypothesis of many social Anarchists who proclaim that violence as now practiced is mostly a state-created process. A study of the Cold War easily returns the assumption Anarchists provide, for if Russia – at the time or now – were to launch its nuclear missiles towards the United States, the only “defense†that the government provides to its people is to launch its back. This mutually assured destruction does very little to truly provide defense. The only possible claim to “defense†comes in the form of deterrence, but insofar as the government itself created nuclear weapons, then the lack of nuclear weapons (thus the lack of a government to create them) would provide much better security. (Sale 40) Secondly, a big criticism thrown at the government by Anarchists is that the government itself legitimizes violence in the name of “national securityâ€Â. (Sale 41) When it comes to domestic crime control, even, legitimated violence is the norm. But due to the propagandizing efforts of the state, this “legal and legitimated†violence rarely enters our minds. (Tifft & Sullivan 143)

As an answer to the increased harms of government, anthropological studies of societies without government proves that, in general, they would provide much less violence to the members of that society. For instance, without a government to draft unwilling people, any military that does exist will be much smaller than those in today’s world. Thus, and this is historically true, any fighting that does occur will be on a much smaller and less deadly scale. The one claim many make to justify government is that a small, anarchic society could easily be overtaken if just one large superpower emerges. (Sale 43) This is historically true in Central and South America with the Incans and Mayans who began to dominate smaller tribes. However, a study of many of these “takeovers†reveals that some civilizations were only controlled in name, but in reality still held all their autonomy. (Sale 42) However, on the flipside, examinations of other anarchic societies throughout history show that if a superpower does emerge, they simply form temporary alliances to fight back the superpower. Once the threat is extinguished, the alliances are over, or may remain as a deterrent, but nonetheless these societies retain all their autonomy throughout the conflict. (Sale 41-44)

The other way in which social anarchy seems to prove itself better than government is in the form of crime prevention and solution. Currently, a state takes violent and destructive action against its own people in order to stop crime – once it has occurred. (Tifft & Sullivan 124) Furthermore, much of what is considered crime currently is based on hierarchy and class, which the state creates, and thus would disappear if the state disappeared. (Ehrlich 11) Within a society without government, crime would be limited to those actions, which infringe upon the liberties of others, and thus crime as a whole would be reduced simply by the reduction in definition. (Ehrlich 12) Furthermore, however, instead of taking violent, yet legal, acts in order to “solve the crime problemâ€Â, a community would take needs-based mutual aid approaches to justice, which would examine the needs of both the victim and the offender. These actions present a better method for restoring people to the community, because they do not label someone a “criminalâ€Â, but rather understand they are a person and treat them as a human being, like everyone else. (Sullivan 15)

It is with these ideas in mind that it would seem government is a failed attempt to obtain security and peace, and in fact has only succeeded in creating more and worse conflict throughout the world. If this is such a major reason for government, as it was for both Hobbes and Locke and also for Rousseau, then it could be inferred that insofar as government has failed to provide this, then it is time to get rid of government.

However, before we hastily arrive at such a radical conclusion, it’s necessary to explore the other justifications for the state. The second justification, and one given more and more today, is that government provides for economic development. This analysis seems to fit well in the mode of thought that calls all humans selfish and destructive (i.e. Hobbes). In this thought, it would seem that the government might be necessary in order to regulate and better the economy. In the eyes of defenders of this claim, government provides regulations and safeguards against tyranny of corporations, through things like anti-trust laws. Furthermore, a government provides a much more centralized effort towards international trade and stable employment. All these things, according to those like Hobbes, would be impossible without government because people would just attempt to put down everyone else once they got theirs. Unfortunately, the specific requirements people give for a government to adequately regulate and develop economic growth and stability in a society have never been met by any large government. Namely, the twentieth century has been marked by the clear inability of large national governments to provide economic stability, security, or employment, to secure people against the dangers of depression and inflation, in both capitalist and “socialist†governments. (Sale 44)

Also included in economic development is the claim that a strong national government does create and regulate a standard currency. However, the benefits of this are nullified by the problems it creates. For instance, the whole process of inflation is due to the regulation of a standard currency, and there is no reason why multiple currencies couldn’t work in a small area. The anarchic response to this would be the simple act of communities accepting certain common tokens, and this has historically occurred with success. Governments have failed to stabilize, for any decent amount of time, currency in a nation, so there seems to be no benefit here for a government. (Sale 45) Furthermore, the regulation of international trade is nothing distinct to government either, as Europe from 1000-1500 AD showed, where the government played no role in the enormous trade occurring at the time. International trade occurs even today without much government interference, it is simply corporation-to-corporation. (Sale 45) Finally, government is a poor response to resource shortages. Governments have inherently failed to ever adequately respond to shortages in a good timeframe, as the historical example of swine-flu shots shows. Furthermore, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that a society without government couldn’t plan to surplus certain amounts of certain resources. (Sale 46)

Although the anarchists fail to adequately explore the specifics of economic development, it would seem that if government has failed to meet any of its stated objectives in the economic realm, then at best it is on par with anarchy. However, due to the problems with government regulation and the high rates of poverty created by government’s inability to secure the economy, it seems that once more a state of anarchy may be the more beneficial option.

But of course there is always the justification of public services to save government, right? Well, depending on whom you ask that may be true, so let’s begin with a defender of the national government. Robert Dahl defended the state’s existence by contending “only the nation-state has the capacity to respond fully to collective preferences.†(Sale 47) Government has, historically, provided – at least partially – control of population growth, food for the starving, public health security, highway systems, welfare, disaster relief, and the distribution of scarce supplies. The question, however, becomes whether or not the government is necessary for these functions to occur, and furthermore if the extent to which governments may secure these public services is even beneficial. (Sale 47) On the topic of environmental services for a community, Dahl contends that a full regulation of certain environmental conditions, such as pollution in a large lake, must be provided by a large government, because if only local governments provide it, then some local governments may choose not to do it – due to the majority of people in that area preferring no action taken – and thus the entire cleanup process is killed. A large government, on the other hand, can control the entire region and ensure the cleanup does occur. Dahl relents that he may have less influence on the larger government than he does on the smaller, but “on balance†he would prefer large government interference.

On the contrary, however, is the clear practical knowledge that the federal government, historically, has problems truly taking public service actions. For instance, it takes a lot to rouse the bureaucrats and politicians to even begin to explore what actions to take, but even worse is the governments inability to ensure the job is done and ensure the action causing the problem doesn’t occur again. (Sale 48) Even worse is the fact that, as British philosopher Michael Taylor states, “The state… in order to expand domestic markets, facilitate common defense, and so on, encourages the weakening of local communities in favor of the national community. In doing so, it relieves individuals of the necessity to cooperate voluntarily amongst themselves on a local basis, making them more dependent upon the state. The result is that altruism and cooperative behavior gradually decay. The state is thereby strengthened and made more effective in its work of weakening the local community.†(Sale 49) All public service actions now controlled by a national government were once in control of the community or agency within the community, and the government only now controls them because they destroyed that initial control. (Sale 49)

Once more it would seem that government has failed to adequately respond to its proclaimed call to duty. So long as the environment is continually destroyed, so long as water is never clean even throughout the US, so long as governments waste time debating whether or not to save dying people, so long as the government fails in all these obligations, then the government is a failure. It cannot be said that a world without government would be without needs, it most certainly wouldn’t be perfect, but so long as communities are looking out for everyone within that community, and even looking out for other communities, than at least the bureaucracy of government would provide the fatal blow that gives anarchy the upper hand in the public health realm.

The final justification, and the last hope for government to be justified, is the idea of social justice. John Locke would definitely state that the government alone guarantees social justice, and that a just government provides social justice. And in theory, of course, this is true. For instance, the American federal government abolished slavery, established civil rights for blacks, outlawed segregated schools and worked to end racial discrimination throughout the country. Most certainly, the government has created reforms that promote social justice. However, examining all nation-states in the world, there isn’t a single place that has full social justice. Even in America, where so much was done on the social justice front, racism is still rampant, discrimination occurs and now homosexuals must fear for their lives. The past has shown cases where the government even promoted social injustice, like slavery, genocide of Native Americans, suppression of unions, Japanese “internment camps†during World War II. The federal government promoted all of these acts heavily, and a few of them are not extremely old occurrences.

Furthermore, no person can stand and proclaim that any of the social justice reforms made by the government were made by the federal government exclusively. Every single piece of legislation that was passed was passed because those affected by the social injustice fought for their rights. In a society without government, these groups of individuals – if injustice existed – could fight for their justice in much the same way. Or, as has always happened in the past, a discriminated group can always migrate and divide from the community. This option, of course, breaks up a community, but nonetheless creates much better social justice than that found in governments of modernity. (Sale 53)

Once more it seems that government, though not faring better here than in other realms, has failed to meet its obligation and thus meet its justification. A world without government isn’t going to have injustices, but the injustices will at least exist on a smaller scale and those being persecuted will have an easier time creating change, not having to push through the hierarchy, bureaucracy, and clutter of government.

The justifications for government have been established, these justifications have been explored deeply, and finally it is time to explore the question, is the state necessary? The first main thing to explore is the fact that Social Contract theorists work on theories of how people would act without government, and therefore a justification for government must come from a clearly visible case of the state of nature, or anarchy, failing. Unfortunately, no contemporary example of social anarchy failing exists, and therefore the original justification for government doesn’t exist. If those who wholeheartedly believe government is necessary want to prove themselves correct, their best option would be to allow a move away from government, back into the state of nature, where people can then function in the way which Hobbes despised, or that Jefferson revered. If the outcome is that which the authoritarians believe, then we could move back to an authoritarian government, but if the result is a well functioning society, then we can remain as a well functioning society. In the end, this exploration has revealed a lack of justification for the governments that rule over our lives, and a great deal of justification for social anarchy as an alternative to government. The change would most definitely be difficult, but not impossible. No matter, though, for the conclusion drawn here isn’t that the United States or another nation should turn to anarchy, but that the government we live under now is not justified and can only be justified by taking the initial action that not even the political theorists took. They based their views on theoretical anarchies, on how they thought anarchy would work, but as has been documented, anarchy doesn’t work that way. And so long as the claims of justification cannot be verified by empirical proof, than we cannot assume government is justified.

People have lived within a government for so long, have been educated by a government for so long, and have had faith in a government for so long without any real thought behind it. With this changing world proving more and more that government fails to accomplish any of its goals and that it has only made worse some of the problems cited as the original reason for government. In his studies, Jefferson asked and answered the question: “whether no law… or too much law… submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last.†(Matthews 63) In this same way, it seems clearly evident that so long as the proclaimed justifications for government are out of sight for all people living today, then government cannot arbitrarily proclaim itself justified.

Works Cited

Cohen, Joshua. “Reflections on Rousseau: Autonomy and Democracy.†Morris 191-204.

Dixon, Heath. Thomas Hobbes: “The Theory of Individual Rights, The Leviathanâ€Â. The Lincoln-Douglas Great Philosopher Library Series. Houston, TX: Communican, 2001.

Ehrlich, Howard J., ed. Reinventing Anarchy, Again. San Francisco: AK Press, 1996.

Goldsmith, M. M. “Hobbes’s ‘Mortall God’: Is There a Fallacy in Hobbes’s Theory of Sovereignty?†Morris 23-40.

Guérin, Daniel. Anarchism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970.

Hampton, Jean. “The Failure of Hobbes’s Social Contract Argument.†Morris 41-58.

Hobbes, Thomas. “The Leviathan.†Dixon 51-193.

Kavka, Gregory S. “Hobbes’s War of All against All.†Morris 1-22.

Locke, John. “The Second Treatise of Government.†Small 49-137.

Matthews, Richard K. The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1984.

Morris, Christopher W., ed. The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Boston Way, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999.

Riley, Patrick. “A Possible Explanation of Rousseau’s General Will.†Morris 167-190.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Le Contrat Social. Multiple Translations. Originally Published 1762.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, translated G. D. H. Cole. Economie Politique. E. P. Dutton and Co.: New York, 1950.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. “The ‘Necessity’ of the State.†Ehrlich 38-55.

Schwartz, Adam. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “The Social Contractâ€Â. The Lincoln-Douglas Great Philosopher Library Series. Houston, TX: Communican, 2001.

Simmons, A. John. “Locke’s State of Nature.†Morris 97-120.

Simmons, A. John. “Political Consent.†Morris 121-142.

Small, Brad. John Locke: “The Second Treatise on Governmentâ€Â. The Lincoln-Douglas Great Philosopher Library Series. Houston, TX: Communican, 2001.