I’m starting to understand this I think…

So, Rousseau was of the belief that humans left to their own devices, in the state of nature, were naturally good, and that the state / culture is the driving force of corruption of the individual. His solution being the ominous “collective will of the people”.

Hobbes was of the opposite opinion, he thought that human being left to their own devices reap havoc and violence; and that the state / culture is the saving grace for us all. His solution essentially being that the state deserves full and near absolute control, otherwise we’ll fall into our savage ways.

Locke on the other hand believed that humans have the capacity for both good and evil, and we can’t assume a tendency for everyone towards any of those particular ends. He believed that the function of government is to uphold the natural rights of the citizens (life, liberty and property). He also fully supported the idea of citizens right to revolution against the government (presumably if they stopped supporting the natural rights of citizens, and instead behaved in another manner).

However, what they all have in common is a “belief” of the necessity (or maybe the presumption) of a social contract.

I’m definitely of the opinion that Locke is a clear winner in the battle of thought between these three (Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau), but I think he’s thinking from a time where governments might have been much easier to topple and switch up? So, his presumption is that we enter into the social contract on natural right grounds, and if this is violated, it’s maybe not so difficult a task to switch things up, rearrange the board so to speak.

However, maybe this is where Spooner’s thinking comes in? Where he rejects the notion that such a thing as the “social contract” is even valid; partly because for a valid contract you need consent (and some term limit), and compliance does not equal consent in this case.

This seems to (in my mind) be where Rothbard seems to pick up the conversation. He definitely follows on from Locke, and if I’m understanding Spooner correctly he’s essentially pulling a rejection of citizens providing the state consent for governance from him.