its relation to liberty. Whereas Locke believes that the state of nature is the source of civil society and the qualities of that society (liberty and equality, in terms of the ideal society), Rousseau believes that civil society and its qualities are imposed by convention. Locke believes that the goal of civil society is to bring about a secure and stable arrangement among human beings living in a community which most reflects the state of nature.
To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit . . . A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank . . . should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection . . . But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license . . . (Locke, 1980, pp. 8-9).
In concept, then, Locke and Rousseau value most highly the qualities of liberty and equality. The closer the two theorists come to designing a real society, however, the more the differences become clear.
Rousseau, on the one hand, thinks it unimportant how it came to be that "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains . . . How did this change take place? I have no idea. What can render it legitimate? I believe I can answer this question" (Rousseau, 1987, p. 141). In other words, whereas Locke seeks legitimacy in what Rousseau
...