Assess the social contract theory of the nature and purpose of the state
Social contract theory is a theory first talked about by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and then other philosophers such as Rousseau, Paine, and Hume; it is a theory suggesting that without state there is the state of nature, which is essentially the state of anarchy and consent is made by individuals to create a state as a ‘necessary evil’ as Tomas Paine describes the state. There are two points of disagreement in relation to the state. One is the nature of the state- whether it should be coercive or not, whether it is necessary; the other is the state's purpose - whether the state should just provide negative freedoms, or whether it should offer some king of welfare.
On the one hand the state is a necessary evil. According to Hobbes the state of nature is the state of licence, where everyone can kill anyone and it is terrible so the state is necessary. Hobbes describes this state as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. Hobbes said that individuals consent to give their rights and licence up to the state in order to get stability because the state will be their ‘night watchman’, as Ferdinand Lassalle referred to the minimal liberal bourgeois state in one of his speeches (although Hobbes did not believe that the state should necessarily be reduced to this form, he accepted that the state can be coercive and dominant). Hobbes claims that in the state of nature most effort would be spent by individuals in protecting themselves and their rights, according to this reasoning a good type of defence is offence, e.g. kill or be killed, making individuals in the state of nature more prone to violence. Since according to Hobbes in the state of nature people are preoccupied with protecting themselves and also since there are no guarantees of protection of property and rights, there would be no point in progress and hence no progress. For example industrial progress would't be happening because why build a factory if it can be taken away or destroyed the next
On the one hand the state is a necessary evil. According to Hobbes the state of nature is the state of licence, where everyone can kill anyone and it is terrible so the state is necessary. Hobbes describes this state as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. Hobbes said that individuals consent to give their rights and licence up to the state in order to get stability because the state will be their ‘night watchman’, as Ferdinand Lassalle referred to the minimal liberal bourgeois state in one of his speeches (although Hobbes did not believe that the state should necessarily be reduced to this form, he accepted that the state can be coercive and dominant). Hobbes claims that in the state of nature most effort would be spent by individuals in protecting themselves and their rights, according to this reasoning a good type of defence is offence, e.g. kill or be killed, making individuals in the state of nature more prone to violence. Since according to Hobbes in the state of nature people are preoccupied with protecting themselves and also since there are no guarantees of protection of property and rights, there would be no point in progress and hence no progress. For example industrial progress would't be happening because why build a factory if it can be taken away or destroyed the next