Hoppesian Conflict Theory: Hoppe and Hobbes on the State of Nature and How to Escape It
Below are two quotes from political philosophers that one would not ordinarily associate with one another. The first:
Men do not live in perfect harmony with each other. Rather, again and again conflicts arise between them. And the source of these conflicts is always the same: the scarcity of goods. I want to do X with a given good G and you want to do simultaneously Y with the very same good. Because it is impossible for you and me to do simultaneously X and Y with G, you and I must clash. If a superabundance of goods existed, i.e., if, for instance, G were available in unlimited supply, our conflict could be avoided. We could both simultaneously do ‘our thing’ with G. But most goods do not exist in superabundance. Ever since mankind left the Garden of Eden, there has been and always will be scarcity all-around us
The second:
[I]f any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.
The first is from Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his short 2014 book, From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy. The second is from none other than Thomas Hobbes in what is perhaps the most influential piece of western political philosophy, Leviathan. Though the two thinkers might appear to be political opponents; one a proponent of an all-powerful sovereign, the other an anarchist, both share a similar view concerning the nature of human conflict. What divides them is their proposed solutions for eliminating that conflict.
The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Interpersonal Conflict
Hoppe is correct in suggesting that “the source of these conflicts is always the same: the scarcity of goods”; without scarcity of goods, conflict over them could not arise as all human uses of resources could be pursued simultaneously. However, this is not the only necessary condition for interpersonal conflict. In his unpublished 2004 manuscript, The Pure Theory of Natural Law, legal philosopher Frank van Dun argues that there are four necessary and sufficient conditions for interpersonal conflict. They are plurality, diversity, scarcity, and free access.
Plurality is the condition of there being more than one person. Since there can be no interpersonal conflict with only one person, a single-person world would never have such conflict. Robinson Crusoe, before the arrival of Friday, could never have interpersonal conflict since he was alone.
Diversity arises when those multiple persons have different plans about how to use some resource. If Crusoe would like to use a stick to fish on the east side of the island, and Friday wished to use that same stick to fish on the west side, conflict could arise. However, if both Crusoe and Friday agree on the use of the stick – say they both want to use the stick to fish on the east side of the island – then no conflict will arise. The stick will be used exactly how both parties want it to be.
Scarcity, the condition that Hoppe brings to light above as the source of human conflict, is the condition in which there is not an infinite number of resources. Crusoe and Friday can only conflict over the use of the stick insofar as they are limited in the number of sticks they have. If (as would have been the case in the Garden of Eden) Friday could pluck the stick from Crusoe’s hand and produce two sticks (and this trick could be performed infinitely many times) then no scarcity would exist. In such a world, no conflict over the use of sticks could ever arise. All differing plans regarding the use of some resource could be fulfilled simultaneously as both parties could use the “same” resource for different purposes.
Finally, the condition of free access is one in which there are no rules governing the use of those scarce resources. If there were a pre-existing rule that Crusoe is the only person who may use sticks on the island, then conflict regarding the stick can be avoided as Friday can never use the stick for his purposes; he must always defer to Crusoe when it comes to how sticks on the island will be used.
Hobbes and Hoppe on the State of Nature
Though Hobbes never made explicit these four necessary and sufficient conditions for interpersonal conflict, he nonetheless recognized the problem. Hobbes suggested that these conflicts arose out of men practicing what he called their “natural right.” This natural right does not refer to what we ordinarily call ‘rights’ or ‘natural rights’ within moral, political, or legal philosophy. Rather, it refers to the “natural right of every man to everything.” That is, the right to take what you want when you want from whom you want. Under these conditions, which Hobbes refers to as the “natural condition of mankind” and has come to be known within political philosophy as the Hobbesian ‘state of nature’, no man is safe from any other: it is a war of all against all. All men are equal in their vulnerability to one another – even the strong. After all, we must all sleep some time. Hobbes famously noted that under these conditions, life would be “nasty, brutish, and short.”
Though it might be a criticism of anarchists that this war of all against all is exactly the world they want, Hoppe does not seek such a world of chaos and conflict. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Hoppe claims that it is our moral duty to avoid interpersonal conflict. In his most recent book, Economy, Society, and History, Hoppe describes what he calls “the Hobbesian myth”. There are two parts to this myth. The first is “the idea that the normal state of mankind is precisely this war of all against all.” According to Hoppe, “The Hobbesian situation does not exist from the outset, but it can be created.” A king might create conflict between the lower classes and the noble classes to have a monopoly of judgeship (and therefore legislation) granted to him by the nobles in exchange for protection. Thus, arises the second part of the Hobbesian myth, “that in order to stop this war of all against all, it is necessary that there must be one single monopolist ruling over all people in order to create peace.” That is Hobbes’ proposed solution for man to escape from the state of nature; power ought to be vested in what Hobbes calls “the sovereign”. But for Hoppe, its necessity is nothing but a myth. So how do these two differ in their approach to avoiding interpersonal conflict?
Escaping Conflict - Unity or Property
Van Dun offers four solutions for eliminating interpersonal conflict. He writes, “Given that each of the causes [plurality, diversity, scarcity, and free access] is necessary, it is sufficient to eliminate (reduce) only one of them to eliminate (reduce) the possibility of interpersonal conflict.” In order to eliminate plurality, diversity, scarcity, and free access, van Dun suggests unity, consensus, abundance, and property respectively.
According to van Dun, Hobbes is a proponent of eliminating plurality via unity. Van Dun describes the unity solution as follows: “As a political ideal unity stands for the reduction of the social to the individual: society becomes an individual, and that individual is personified in the ruler or ruling authority.” Through this solution, the problem of interpersonal conflict dissolves. There are not multiple people, but one; the ruler. He makes all decisions regarding the use of all resources everywhere and at all times. This is precisely the solution that Hobbes sought in a sovereign. Van Dun writes,
Plato and Hobbes were in agreement on the thesis that only a strong form of political organization under the unconditional supremacy of a single authority can defuse the supposed tendency of men to start and escalate universal war and conflict. That supreme authority preferably should be one natural person (Plato’s philosopher-king or Hobbes’ sovereign and absolute monarch) but it might also be, probably as a second-best option, an assembly (Hobbes’ Parliament) or council (Plato’s Nocturnal Council) producing binding ‘collective decisions’ according to some decision-rule.
Hoppe, as you might have guessed, is a proponent of the fourth solution; property. Hoppe’s property rules set out the rules for when and how men can use resources. The rules are as follows:
Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him. This ownership of “originally appropriated” places and goods by a person implies his right to use and transform these places and goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in John Locke’s phrase, “mixing one’s labor” with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary — contractual — transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.
These rules set forth by Hoppe eliminate any possibility of interpersonal conflict. The first user of some resource could never conflict with someone else over the resource as no one else was using it prior to the first user’s appropriation of that resource. It is only second users or “latecomers” as Hoppe calls them who can cause conflict. That is, they can use force against the first user of a resource in order to use that resource for their differing purposes. However, this is not to say that second (or third or fourth or fifth, etc.) users can never come to use a resource without creating interpersonal conflict. Rather, by voluntary exchange and contract, second users can gain ownership of previously appropriated resources. It is only when these exchanges are voluntary that no conflict arises since both parties to the exchange will for the exchange to happen, i.e. it is in both of their plans for the exchange of resources to occur. Thus, there is no diversity in their plans regarding the use of the resource at the time of the exchange. According to Hoppe, it is only this principle of first appropriation and voluntary exchange that “makes it possible that conflict can be avoided throughout—from the very beginning of mankind until the end.”
Conclusion
Hoppean or Hobbesian, the aim of avoiding interpersonal conflict and the war of all against all is present in both systems. It’s their proposed method for doing so which differs. Hobbes calls for an all-powerful sovereign and Hoppe for a private property ethic. Even when political solutions differ drastically, the problem two theorists set out to solve may be the same.