Causes of conflict in the state of nature in Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau - a political-anthropological perspective

U ovom radu pružio sam analizu prirodnog stanja i uzroka sukoba kod Hobbesa, Lockea i Rousseaua, koji su glavni predstavnici kontraktualističke teorije. Oni žele pojasniti kako bi izgledalo društvo bez političkog autoriteta. Svaki od njih drugačije vidi ljudsku prirodu i slobodu. Zbog toga su njihova rješenja za nastale sukobe različita. Za razliku od Lockea koji želi ograničenu vlast kojoj je prioritet očuvanje privatnog vlasništva, Hobbes i Rousseau zauzimaju kontroverzniju ideju apsolutističke vlasti. Hobbesu je apsolutni vladar jamac sigurnosti i stabilnosti, a Rousseau opća volja predstavlja idealni način ostvarivanja čovjeka u političkoj zajednici. Političko djelovanje i individualizam naglašavaju podjelu na javnu i privatnu sferu što problematiziram u zaključnim razmatranjima. Republikanizam i liberalizam su dvije ključne teorije koje nam opisuju dužnosti građana u državi.In this paper I have provided an analysis of the state of nature and the causes of conflict in Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, who are the main representatives of contractualist theory. They aim to explain what society would look like without political authority. Each of them perceives human nature and freedom differently, leading to different solutions for resolving conflicts. Unlike Locke, who advocates for limited government with a priority on preservation of private property, Hobbes and Rousseau embrace more controversial ideas of absolutist rule. Hobbes sees the absolute ruler as the guarantor of security and stability, while Rousseau's concept of the general will represents the ideal way of achieving human fulfillment within political community. Political action and individualism emphasize the division into the private and public spheres, which I elaborate in the concluding considerations. Republicanism and liberalism are two key theories that describe the duties of citizens in the state