Rousseau Vs. Hobbes: Legitimacy Of The Social Contract

For Fisher, the inability of the state government to control the rapid rise of crime, nor extend aid to those citizens unable to afford signifies a break in the social contract. The legitimacy of the sovereign for Hobbes remains, “as long as and no longer than the power lasts by which he is able to protect them,” (Hobbes 298) suggesting that the philosopher would agree that the Mexican Government’s inability to defend their underprivileged citizens warrants a break in the social contract, allowing individuals to seek defense by any means necessary. Hobbes original description of a war of all against all resounds in, “organized self defense groups,” (Fisher 2) who themselves have been, “tempted into drug trafficking, kidnapping or extortion” (Fisher 2). Hobbes philosophy echoes Fishers claim that the
On the contrary Rousseau claims, that “each individual, as a man, have a private will contrary to or different from the general will of that he has as a citizen,” (Rousseau 472) illuminating the liberty to arm and defend oneself so long as the private will follows the agreements made clear by the sovereign under the social contract. While Fisher claims that, “private security has become a central part of criminality itself, (Fisher 3) Hobbes would contend that, “subjects to a monarch cannot without his leave cast off monarchy and return to a disunited multitude,” (Hobbes 279). Hobbes view outlines a clear distinction among private security acting wholly under the authority of the larger sovereign and the appropriation of sovereign to that individual or conglomeration which the security serves. Given these claims, both philosophers understand the role of private security as completely legitimate insofar that their actions and contractor are wholly liable to the will and sword of the