III. Detailed Philosophical Critiques: The Internal Contradictions of the Thinkers Who Shaped the Founders
While the Enlightenment philosophers collectively articulated a vision of rational freedom, natural rights, and universal equality, their individual theories contain deep internal contradictions. These are not small inconsistencies or mere historical blind spots; they are foundational tensions that undermine the very ideals these thinkers are celebrated for. The Founding Fathers did not simply misinterpret these philosophies—they absorbed their contradictions wholesale. By examining each philosopher in detail, we see how the theoretical foundations of liberal democracy were fractured from the beginning.
- John Locke: Natural Rights and the Machinery of Inequality
Locke is often portrayed as the architect of modern liberalism, the defender of natural rights, and the inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Yet Locke’s theory is riddled with contradictions that render his model of universal liberty unstable.
a. Natural equality vs. property-based hierarchy
Locke begins with the claim that all individuals are naturally equal and free. But he then constructs a property theory that inevitably produces inequality. Property, in Locke’s account, emerges through the mixing of labor with nature, but only for those who control labor and land. This empowers economic accumulation without limit, which results in hierarchy, dependency, and wage labor—all of which contradict natural equality. The supposed universality of natural rights collapses under the weight of a property regime that structurally divides society into owners and non-owners.
b. Consent vs. political exclusion
Locke insists that legitimate government is founded on consent, yet he simultaneously restricts meaningful political participation to property-owning men. Property becomes the determinant of political agency, contradicting the claim that rights are inherent and universal. If natural rights exist for all, political power cannot be contingent upon property ownership. Locke’s theory thus undermines its own principle of consent.
c. The “state of nature” vs. obligatory civil society
Locke frames his social contract as voluntary, but he also suggests that once a society is formed, individuals are morally bound to obey its laws even if they did not explicitly consent. This means the transition from nature to civil society is conceptually irreversible. The contract is not truly voluntary; it is a one-way theoretical device that legitimizes authority without permitting dissent.
d. Universal liberty vs. colonial domination
Though not necessary for our argument, it is notable that Locke justifies expropriation of Indigenous land by redefining what counts as legitimate labor. This is not a personal contradiction but a structural one: Locke’s theory of property and improvement is incompatible with universal human rights because it elevates one group’s economic practices over others’.
Locke’s model of freedom is thus internally unstable—universal rights supported by inherently unequal structures.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The General Will and the Erasure of Individual Freedom
Rousseau is often celebrated as a radical egalitarian and critic of social inequality. Yet his theory of political legitimacy contains profound contradictions that can justify the very authoritarianism he sought to avoid.
a. “Man is born free, but everywhere in chains” — and must remain chained
Rousseau begins with the premise that humans are naturally free. But his solution to social inequality is to submit individuals to the “general will” of the collective. This will is said to represent the true interests of all members of society, but only insofar as individuals fully submit to it. Thus, freedom becomes obedience to a collective abstraction rather than autonomy.
b. The general will cannot be questioned
If the general will represents the common good, dissent is not merely disagreement—it is conceptualized as irrational or immoral. This transforms disagreement into illegitimacy. Individuals are “forced to be free,” meaning freedom demands submission to the sovereign’s interpretation of collective will. This is a direct contradiction: freedom cannot be coerced without ceasing to be freedom.
c. Equality requires homogeneity
Rousseau claims to defend equality, but he also insists that true citizenship requires cultural and moral homogeneity. This contradicts the universality of his model: a society with plural perspectives cannot express a unified general will, and therefore cannot be free. In this way, Rousseau’s egalitarianism depends on suppressing difference—an internal tension that makes his theory incompatible with real pluralism.
Rousseau constructs a system where freedom and obedience are identical—a contradiction that transforms liberation into a new form of constraint.
- Montesquieu: Separation of Powers Built on Hierarchy and Inequality
Montesquieu is credited with inspiring the Founders’ separation of powers, yet his own political theory contains deep contradictions that undermine his model of liberty.
a. Climate theory and cultural hierarchy
Montesquieu famously claims that climate determines a society’s capacity for freedom or despotism. This is incompatible with universal liberty because it grounds political capacity in geography rather than inherent human equality. If certain climates predispose people to tyranny, the universality of political rights evaporates.
b. Separation of powers as redistribution of coercion
Montesquieu proposes that liberty arises when power is divided among branches of government. But this model does not eliminate hierarchical authority; it merely redistributes it. Coercive power remains intact, only divided among institutions. This means liberty continues to depend on obedience to a complex set of authorities, contradicting the idea of individual autonomy.
c. Aristocratic assumptions
Montesquieu defends intermediate bodies like the nobility as necessary checks on monarchs. This embeds inequality within his theory. The aristocracy becomes a guardian of liberty—even though aristocratic privilege contradicts the very notion of equal rights.
Montesquieu’s model thus grounds freedom in systems of inherited hierarchy and coercive restraint.
- David Hume: Universal Human Nature and the Hierarchy of Reason
Hume’s empirical skepticism and political moderation profoundly shaped the Founders, particularly Madison. Yet Hume’s political theory is undermined by contradictions he never resolves.
a. Human reason as universal vs. racial hierarchy
Hume’s philosophical project is grounded in universal human psychology, claiming that reason emerges from shared mental faculties. Yet he simultaneously asserts in his essays that non-European peoples are less capable of reason and civilization. This contradiction destroys the universality of his own epistemology.
b. Skepticism of reason vs. trust in elite governance
Hume’s deep skepticism about human rationality suggests that no individual or institution should wield absolute authority. Yet in politics, he defers to established authority and elite rule as stabilizing forces. This contradicts his own philosophical skepticism: if humans are fallible, elites are not less fallible.
c. Stability over liberty
Hume prioritizes social stability and order, but claims to defend liberty as well. These principles cannot coexist without tension because stability demands obedience and liberty demands autonomy. Hume never resolves this contradiction, and the Founders inherited this framework directly.
- Thomas Hobbes: Absolute Sovereignty as the Price of Freedom
Though not always cited by the Founders, Hobbes influenced the broader tradition of social contract theory and shaped the philosophical landscape they inherited.
a. Natural equality vs. universal submission
Hobbes argues that humans are naturally equal in vulnerability, yet insists that security requires absolute submission to a sovereign. Natural equality is the basis for universal fear, which becomes the justification for universal obedience. Freedom collapses into submission.
b. The contract that cannot be broken
Hobbes claims that individuals voluntarily create a sovereign, but once the contract is sealed, it cannot be revoked. A voluntary agreement that cannot be dissolved is intrinsically contradictory.
c. Peace through absolute power
Hobbes defines freedom not as autonomy but as the absence of physical restraint. Thus, one can be “free” while under strict authoritarian rule—a definition that contradicts the very concept of political liberty.
Hobbes’ contradictions expose the fragility of the entire social contract tradition.
Conclusion of Section III
The philosophers who shaped the Founding Fathers did not offer coherent theories of universal freedom. Their work is rich, influential, and intellectually monumental, but it is also deeply conflicted. Each major figure embeds contradictions at the heart of their political thought: natural equality paired with structural hierarchy; universal rights undercut by exclusionary premises; liberty dependent on coercive institutions; and consent that cannot be withheld.
These contradictions were never resolved. Instead, they were inherited, reiterated, and institutionalized by the Founders, ensuring that the liberal project rested on unstable foundations long before it confronted the realities of race, gender, class, and colonial domination. The theoretical vision of freedom was never fully coherent; the cracks were present from the beginning.
If you want, I can now proceed to Section IV: Synthesis and Final Argument, bringing all three sections together into one powerful concluding theoretical analysis.