Jim Devine wrote:.
>This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize" property
>ownership.
in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism of Hobbes in
_On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what is social
(property) onto human nature, to say that it was in human nature to
acquire property. R disagreed with him since he believed private property
was a social invention, "not" a natural condition of human being. R says
"averice" "oppresion, desire", all the attributes that liberal contract
theorists traced to human nature are the charecteristics we gain in
society. he then continues in the same passage, they "portrayed savage
men". "it was in fact CIVIL MAN they depicted"
i always find _Origins of Inequality_ a very important piece of
work on the "anthropology" of human development.that being said, it should
not be read from a romantic point of view as if R was talking about an
abstract state of nature.. it should be read from a materialist point of
view.
R was *not* Marx, but if I were to choose among Locke, Hobbes and R, I
would definetly put R near Marx, *not* near Hobbes..
Mine
