She wasn't arguing that, so much as questioning how I was legitimately putting those two seemingly contradictory ideas together into a plausible argument.
I see. Well, if memory serves (and I'm too tired to consult outside sources at the moment), we're dealing with Hobbe and Locke at the same time. They were both Contractualists, meaning that the people had a natural interest to sign over some of their rights to a higher power (i.e., the State).
Their starting principles were very different, though. They both reflected on what was termed, "the state of nature" (methinks). They had very different ideas of what the state of nature was like, though. Hobbes has a pessimistic view that humanity was in a state of perpetual war where Locke though that people lived in general peace, but the majority of disputes had to do with property rights. These ideas greatly influence their conceptions of "the Social Contract" itself.
So Hobbes argues that the only solution was for people to sign all of their rights away to "the Sovereign" or "the Leviathan" while Locke developed the ida of limited government, centered around separation of powers.
But if you take Hobbes's view of the state of nature, separation of power isn't going to do much good. Seeing as though instead of one Sovereign, you might end up with a group of sovereigns in collusion (i.e., oligarchy). And we have empiricle evidence that oligarchies can, in fact, be absolutist (Fascist Italy is the boldest recent example).
Locke's idea that separation of powers only works if you have Locke's point of view about the general nature of humanity. But again, we have empirical evidence in regard to Locke's theories. It's called the United States. Originally, the Founders modeled the Constitution on Locke's principles, but they did not stop by merely separating powers. They also built in constitutional limitations on each of the branches, because they were suspicious of a powerful state in any form. They also diffused power between the Federal and state governments. Two years later they also included the Bill of Rights (further limitations). And let's not forget the Civil War. After this, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed. The 14th amendment is not very well known, but it is by far the most important amendment in the Constitution in regard to civil liberties.
Theories are just starting points. Once put into practice, they are never the way they are on paper. Without these limits, we very well could be an absolute state today.
I don't know if you modeled your argument like the above, but yes, I agree with your conclusion. Sorry for the long-windedness
