Of Man: Hobbes, Leviathan, and the Price of Liberty

THE final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants….

The commonwealth is instituted when all agree in the following manner: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.

The sovereign has twelve principal rights:

1. because a successive covenant cannot override a prior one, the subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government.
2. because the covenant forming the commonwealth is the subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the sovereign.
3. the selection of sovereign is (in theory) by majority vote; the minority have agreed to abide by this.
4. every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the sovereign cannot injure any of his subjects, and cannot be accused of injustice.
5. following this, the sovereign cannot justly be put to death by the subjects.
6. because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord, therefore the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse; who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.
7. to prescribe the rules of civil law and property.
8. to be judge in all cases.
9. to make war and peace as he sees fit; and to command the army.
10. to choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.
11. to reward with riches and honour; or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy.
12. to establish laws about honour and a scale of worth.

- From Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

--------------------------------------------------------

A Commonwealth as defined by an English subject in 1651.  Britain was locked in the throes of civil war and as I am an empathetic person, I can imagine Hobbes is horrified by "the war of all against all" that his limited worldview imparts upon him.  Speaking of limited, here is a brief summation of Hobbes the man:

In his biography, it is claimed that Hobbes reported "my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear."  His mother labored prematurely when news of the coming invasion by the Spanish Armada struck England.

He was abandoned to his uncle as a toddler and began education in various churches and private schools starting at age four.  He attended university at a college whose principal was a Puritan and evidently had some influence on him.  Upon graduation, he became a tutor for a son of Cavendish and lived under this patron for a time, traveling Europe and furthering his own education.  His early adulthood was supported by patronage -though it was employment, it was necessarily influenced by his proximity to the Church and then the titles of nobility.  

His time spent tutoring abroad sparked his interest in some of the key philosophical debates of the time and he participated in many debates held in Paris and by the time he returned to England, he considered himself a philosopher and a scholar.

England was politically tense to say the least and he published a treatise, The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic, which introduced the idea of the social contract.  This is important, because it is an influential perspective that can be seen in political thought today.  To summarise, Hobbes argues for a social contract entered into by the People, and rule by an absolute sovereign. Hobbes wrote that chaos or civil war - situations identified with a state of nature - could only be averted by strong central government.  Hobbes finds three basic causes of the conflict in this state of nature: competition, diffidence and glory. "The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. His first law of nature is that that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. In the state of nature, every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body but the second law is that, in order to secure the advantages of peace, that a man be willing, when others are so too… to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. This is the beginning of contracts/covenants; performing of which is the third law of nature. Injustice, therefore, is failure to perform in a covenant; all else is just."

 Hobbes posited that there are three types of Commonwealth: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy; the only difference being the nature of the sovereign.  "...the sovereign, or the person representative of all and every one of the multitude. And because the sovereignty is either in one man, or in an assembly of more than one; and into that assembly either every man hath right to enter, or not every one, but certain men distinguished from the rest; it is manifest there can be but three kinds of Commonwealth. For the representative must needs be one man, or more; and if more, then it is the assembly of all, or but of a part. When the representative is one man, then is the Commonwealth a monarchy; when an assembly of all that will come together, then it is a democracy, or popular Commonwealth; when an assembly of a part only, then it is called an aristocracy."

An interestingly limited view regarding social structure.  Our local governments are explicitly modeled, word for word, after the British Commonwealth system unless expressly legislated otherwise.  This is extremely enlightening, however, for 'We the Subjects' if this political viewpoint is nurtured and embraced by those whom we elect to represent us.  I have long thought that it is.  We are continually reminded several times a day by our politicians of 'the political realities' we simply could not understand from the comfort of our Lazyboys.  I used to think that the political realities were all about re-election, I now believe that the phrase is PR code for the ingrained separation between the People and their elected 'Leaders' i.e., Aristocracy.  The environment of D.C. is very much fashioned after a palatial court - the Citizens have no representation per se; local laws are Federal law and therefore, no human rights exist to be violated; the lands of the Aristocracy are far and removed form this auspicious seat of government and therefore the subjects are literally blind to the political movements that shape our Liberty.  This last point is vital, because it glaringly points out that we are living under a contract of which we had no prior knowledge, or rather, we have been mislead into believing was otherwise in our favor... somewhat.  The political reality is that we are brought up to believe from an early age that we have a representative republican democracy, yet this is merely the advertisement, the big sell that encourages us to participate in the biggest bait-and-switch in political history: we are living under an Aristocracy.  

Hobbes continues by supporting the claim that there are only three Commonwealth possible:

"Other kind of Commonwealth there can be none: for either one, or more, or all, must have the sovereign power (which I have shown to be indivisible) entire. There be other names of government in the histories and books of policy; as tyranny and oligarchy; but they are not the names of other forms of government, but of the same forms misliked. For they that are discontented under monarchy call it tyranny; and they that are displeased with aristocracy call it oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a democracy call it anarchy, which signifies want of government; and yet I think no man believes that want of government is any new kind of government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe that the government is of one kind when they like it, and another when they mislike it or are oppressed by the governors." 

How many times I have heard this term, oligarchy, and not truly understood it for lack of this simple postulation.  It gives form and substance to this definition by Merriam-Webster:

oligarchy

Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy

Pronunciation: \ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural ol·i·gar·chies

Date: 1542

1 : government by the few

2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control

Another definition I'd like to share:

noblesse oblige

Main Entry: no·blesse oblige

Pronunciation: \nō-ˈbles-ə-ˈblēzh\

Function: noun

Etymology: French, literally, nobility obligates

Date: 1837

: the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth

I am convinced that the nature of those who preside over the fate of our People view themselves, helplessly I'm sure, as nobility with the associated obligation to take care of their subjects and secure them from harm - a sentiment echoed many times by our 43rd President, George W. Bush: "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."  This noble obligation is clearly not part of the oath he swore when he took office, yet it shows clearly the mindset of a man who believes himself a champion of some personal crusade that is global in scale and indicative of a not uncertain hubris or megalomaniacal self-importance obviously derived from his birth.  I have seen the same attitude toward 'We the Subjects' exhibited by, say, a Kennedy as well.  This noblel obligation comes at an unspoken cost to the People governed - we must keep the Aristocrats in a manner with which they are comfortable - in other words, wealthy and unopposed.  

According to my understanding, the United States Constitution protects the American People, identifying them and all human beings as having inalienable rights, and the President is the prime enforcer of the Constitution, and if he/she does their job, our Liberty is secure without having to sacrifice any rights.  

"The difference between these three kinds of Commonwealth consisteth not in the difference of power, but in the difference of convenience or aptitude to produce the peace and security of the people; for which end they were instituted. And to compare monarchy with the other two, we may observe: first, that whosoever beareth the person of the people [democracy], or is one of that assembly that bears it [aristocracy], beareth also his own natural person. And though he be careful in his politic person to procure the common interest, yet he is more, or no less, careful to procure the private good of himself, his family, kindred and friends; and for the most part, if the public interest chance to cross the private, he prefers the private: for the passions of men are commonly more potent than their reason. From whence it follows that where the public and private interest are most closely united, there is the public most advanced. Now in monarchy the private interest is the same with the public. The riches, power, and honour of a monarch arise only from the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects. For no king can be rich, nor glorious, nor secure, whose subjects are either poor, or contemptible, or too weak through want, or dissension, to maintain a war against their enemies; whereas in a democracy, or aristocracy, the public prosperity confers not so much to the private fortune of one that is corrupt, or ambitious, as doth many times a perfidious advice, a treacherous action, or a civil war."

We obviously can not be trusted to govern ourselves, under the accords of those who wish to cultivate an "...aptitude to produce the peace and security of the people;"  It is held, therefore, by those who lead us that we have no idea of our own nature or needs and must be strictly managed in a way that is just and befitting our rank and social stature.  Elections may raise a person into a position with titles, however, freshmen legislators are treated by their superiors as neuveau riche are treated by the wealthy before they have proven themselves worthy through acts of noble obligation.  This includes further enriching themselves and proving their acumen through acquisition of power - for power only respects power.  And paradoxically, true wealth only comes from the productivity of one's lands and the subjects who work it.  The Noble must learn the most efficient and effective ways to wrest the most wealth from their holdings (ironically more often than not granted to them by some higher authority) - a respected display of power.  I can not help but see this mindset demonstrated pervasively throughout the U.S. political system as it has been infested by pseudo-monarchs from the outside and mini-tyrants from the inside trying to garner the attention and good graces of the shadow-monarchy from which all wealth and standing arises.  Is it so difficult to see the Fed as a clearinghouse of various monarchies' wealth, granting titles and wealth?  How about multi-national corporations?  The Rothschilds and Rockefellers?

I am convinced that there are those of us who believe that this is all just and right based on views like those espoused by Hobbes - human nature begs for this kind of stratification and there are those who will happily answer the call.  The fundamental flaw in this is that we have free will.  Only the insecure crave security.  Only the morally bankrupt seek outside influences to force them to behave according to some writ.  Nowhere is the virtue of personal responsibility and liberty to exercise it held to be unalienable like it is in the documents drafted to birth the United States.  Liberty is the end for which our Commonwealth was fashioned, not the production of peace and security.  Paramount to this is the fundamental right of the governed to rebel against the social contract to preserve Liberty - a notion abhorrent to the likes of Hobbes, who maintained that the contract must be accepted utterly by the governed and the sovereign; that the sovereign is deigned by God to keep the contract by any means necessary, including the absolute oppression of the governed.  The ghost of Machiavelli rears his head at this thought.  

I see this kind of behavior in our present government, in fact as I look back, I see these attitudes in some of our first attempts at democracy and republicanism.  Our presidents have been kings and our legislators nobility (literally) from the inception of our government.  That few saw this and attempted to right themselves according to the just restrictions of power outlined in the Constitution is testimony to their commitment to the People: Adams, Jefferson, Madison, even Washington in a fashion saw the immediate danger posed by their position as President in a fledgling democracy and sacrificed personal gain (in their own ways) for setting the precedent of being at once patriots and common.  This demonstrated to each Citizen that we are all created equal - a demonstration of statesmanship that would most likely be spun into ruinous disgrace by today's media.  It also, however, set a dangerous course for those who would exploit the assumption of altruistic intentions by our representatives.  Again, if power (presidential or otherwise) were not to step down (it's apparent noble obligation), it would reign supreme.  Fortunately, we have elections, right?  Unfortunately, that's not enough, because we are still hobbled under the zeitgeist that we elect Leaders rather than Representatives.  We in whom the power is entrusted by the Constitution give up our sovereignty to a few folks to exercise on our behalf.  That can't end well, and to wit, it hasn't.  We are as serfs toiling the lands bequeathed unto us by divine providence through the hand of His most high - the noble politician.  

If Liberty is in fact the purpose of our governance, Liberty demands that we take a more active role toward self-governance.  Liberty demands that we look no further for noble obligation than our own hearts.  Liberty demands that we champion Justice, the enforcer of Liberty, and hold those who serve at our pleasure accountable for their disregard for our sovereignty.  Stop the aristocracy - for surely, that is how they inevitably see themselves and behave accordingly to the past principles of those holding divine providence in the palm of their hands.  Help them wake from their 'American Dream' - one of aristocracy and sovereign na-monarchy and help me defend my Liberty against the tide of ignorance that got us into this dream of a frightened little Puritan who just wanted a noble benefactor to take care of him and protect him from the dangerous world.