tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5962800197306664225..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Allan Bloom on States of NatureBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70304463298987423572020-09-13T15:39:13.343-06:002020-09-13T15:39:13.343-06:00https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/0...https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-0057<br /><br /><br />As we see the Founders rejected Hobbes' view of the "state of nature" and saw Locke opposed as well.<br /><br /><br />"I shall, for the present, pass over to that part of your pamphlet, in which you endeavour to establish the supremacy of the British Parliament over America. After a proper eclaircissement of this point, I shall draw such inferences, as will sap the foundation of every thing you have offered.<br />The first thing that presents itself is a wish, that “I had, explicitly, declared to the public my ideas of the natural rights of mankind. Man, in a state of nature (you say) may be considered, as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, and, then, the weak must submit to the strong.”<br /><br />I shall, henceforth, begin to make some allowance for that enmity, you have discovered to the natural rights of mankind. For, though ignorance of them in this enlightened age cannot be admitted, as a sufficient excuse for you; yet, it ought, in some measure, to extenuate your guilt. If you will follow my advice, there still may be hopes of your reformation. Apply yourself, without delay, to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal, Grotius. Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. I might mention other excellent writers on this subject; but if you attend, diligently, to these, you will not require any others.<br /><br />There is so strong a similitude between your political principles and those maintained by Mr. Hobb[e]s, that, in judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you for a disciple of his. <b>[Hobbes'] opinion was, exactly, coincident with yours, relative to man in a state of nature. He held, as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial</b>, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he run into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe."---A Hamilton 1775Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72918990873111900292020-09-13T14:34:08.200-06:002020-09-13T14:34:08.200-06:00Unlike Hobbes' Leviathan and Rousseau's &q...Unlike Hobbes' <i>Leviathan</i> and Rousseau's "general will" of the people, Locke's "State of Nature" is bound by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God and thus so is government.<br /><br />Since they reject "natural law," Strauss and Bloom are not helpful on this issue. They are philosophers, not historians. Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com