Thomas Hobbes Parts of the leviathan

1 Thomas Hobbes Parts of the leviathan The development of the modern state continued through the 16th and the 17th century with the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli, who discussed deferent types of government, principalities, and republics1, and the way they are established and maintained, and Thomas Hobbes, who focused on the concept of absolute power conceded by the citizens to an unaccountable person or a group whom he called “Sovereign” to decide every social and political issue concerning the citizens. Although, Machiavelli spoke of the function of power in the republic and principalities from both personal experience and historical point of view, Hobbes’ Leviathan stated that the nature and the role of absolutism were similar to but deferent from Machiavelli’s republic and principalities. Machiavelli, the Prince indicated that states were either a republic or a principality and that principalities were either hereditary passed down through the bloodline of the ruling families, or by acquiring new cities into the existing principality. Machiavelli further explained that hereditary principalities were easier to hold on to and maintain because the citizenry was accustomed to being ruled by the same family2, which had the power to rule and serve the people, and legislate and implement the will of the prince. He also expound on the struggle for power in the principality between groups within the city, when citizens began to look for ways to overthrow their oppressing ruler. In addition, when addressing the civil principalities, he gave the example of a prominent citizen successfully becoming a prince of his country by the favor of his fellow citizens, not by violence3. Hobbes, on the other hand, agreed with Machiavelli, suggesting that the state had sovereignty over the people being governed, but the difference emerge in how the government was formed before having complete authority. 1 Harvy C. Mansfield The Prince University of Chicago (Chicago 1998),P 5. Harvy C. Mansfield The Prince University of Chicago (Chicago 1998),P 5. 3 Harvy C. Mansfield The Prince University of Chicago (Chicago 1998),P 39. 2 2 Thomas Hobbes Parts of the leviathan Hobbes pointed to two ways in which power or government were formed: by force, or when men of the society agree to submit their will and freedom to a chosen authority4. Hobbes added that in the state of nature, a condition of all human beings, there was a lack of security5; people were hostile to each other’s when there was no strong authority to regulate and govern the social interact ion among them, and unhappiness, rivalry, and violence were common features in their lives. Rivalry and violence were used to surpass others, therefore leading to their communities being in constant conflict were every man against every man6. Moreover, the leviathan state of nature was one of absolute chaos. Beside the absence of security, communities lacked progress, means of production, industries, or a common culture that man can preserve. War was all that man knew, and without a government or power to hold them each and every one was responsible for their action, people tended to take the law into their own hands and control their own destiny7. In fact, the right of nature permitted each man to seek out his own preservation and do what he believed necessary to reach his desired glory or protect him-self from others. Hobbes also believed that the formation of the state lies within man himself. Although man is aggressive by nature, in reality man also fears death, and to avoid death he searches for peace and security. Hobbes said that the only way to bring the power needed to maintain peace and security was through a covenant or agreement whereby man of the community agreed to surrender their power and freedom to one man whom he called the “Sovereign” to decide every social and political issue concerning them. This sovereign is the new power; he represents the government that Hobbes stated is founded by submission of all citizens to one united authority, 4 Edwin Curley Hobbes, leviathan,(Indianapolis, Indiana 1994).p110 Edwin Curley Hobbes, leviathan,(Indianapolis, Indiana 1994).p 76 6 Edwin Curley Hobbes, leviathan,(Indianapolis, Indiana 1994).p76 7 Edwin Curley Hobbes, leviathan,(Indianapolis, Indiana 1994).p 79 5 3 Thomas Hobbes Parts of the leviathan which is similar to Machiavelli’s views on power. Also, the use of force as an alternative way to acquire principalities or forming a state is clear similarity that both Hobbes and Machiavelli share, despite Hobbes’ optimistic view on forceful acquisition even when people may initially oppose this kind of acquisition. Hobbes also said that if people did not resist, then the sovereign hold control over the subjects indefinitely and could not be punished by them8. This stands in contrast with Machiavelli, who feared that, the use of force in acquiring a new state may turn the men who willingly changed their lord against the new prince9. For Machiavelli’s the republics represent a government system in a state where people had the right to elect officials10, although he viewed republics as being ineffective in public admiration. He also acknowledged the alternative forms of administration in the state. For Hobbes, people were naturally selfish and materialistic to the extent that they could not form ant type of government. Thus, to avoid this problem, it is essential to limit the free state of nature before creating societies. For example, Hobbes thought that freedom would result in infighting through a struggle for power and wealth; thus, the social contract in a state of nature required submission to a higher authority, not governing by force11. Even though, Hobbes stated that the ruled gave up some of their rights for the betterment of society, this would not entirely result in absolutism, because after a while the people would be assured stability, safety, and security and gain wealth, freedom and rights, after initially ceding them to a legitimate authority. Hobbes thoughts also capture the notion that individual rights and equality are essential in the long run, as individual rights indicate that a republic is in an ideal 8 Edwin Curley Hobbes, leviathan,(Indianapolis, Indiana 1994).p128 Harvy C. Mansfield The Prince University of Chicago (Chicago 1998),P 8 10 Harvy C. Mansfield The Prince University of Chicago (Chicago 1998),P 38, 39 11 Edwin Curley Hobbes, leviathan,(Indianapolis, Indiana 1994).P 76.128 9 4 Thomas Hobbes Parts of the leviathan state so long there is sustainable security. However, this view contrasts with that of Machiavelli who preferred the return of principalities in place of republics. Hobbes viewed human being as irrational and thought that in the state of nature, there was little authority and people could do anything they wanted because there were no defined rights. However, through a social contract all must surrender sovereignty to a person or a group of people through democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy12. On the other hand Machiavelli held a different opinion on governance, as shown by his preoccupation with princely rule, where Hobbes would consider both principalities and republics as having sovereign power over the people and assumed that principalities would automatically transfer authority to the prince. Even though, their ideas are similar on the issue of chaos, they have major differences between them when it comes to how to capture and maintain power; they do not agree on the way in which to restore order in the society, Hobbes was more focused on sovereignty for the leader in a state and saw the power of the state to be the ultimate goal of a prince, who should prioritize how to capture and maintain this power, in contrast with Machiavelli who looked at power from an aristocratic view, where the prince inherits power and uses this legitimacy for his own benefit. Hobbes also pointed to power as originating from sovereignty. This view holds even when sovereign reigns over the ruled, he is still subject to the people because he drives sovereignty from the power given by the citizens, which contrast with Machiavelli’s principalities, where princes automatically have legitimacy with sovereignty playing a minor role in these principalities. In any case, Hobbes’ view on ceding power to the sovereign dos not equal dictatorship, because it is t e result of a social contract. 12 Edwin Curley Hobbes, leviathan,(Indianapolis, Indiana 1994).P 76 5 Thomas Hobbes Parts of the leviathan In conclusion, Hobbes and Machiavelli both were concern about the creation and the maintenance of the state and the use of power. Machiavelli focused on principalities and republic as the only regime he could see fit in the state, and Hobbes, although he has some similarities with Machiavelli, favored a monarchy as the regime of choice, believing in its undivided power, and its absolute authority. In addition, they both examined the individual perspective on human nature and how human could be more effective in the state. 6 Thomas Hobbes Parts of the leviathan Bibliography Edwin Curley Hobbes, leviathan,(Indianapolis, Indiana 1994) Harvy C. Mansfield the Prince University of Chicago (Chicago 1998)