The
Leviathan Commonwealth: War on the Individual
Thomas Hobbes states that a commonwealth is instituted “...when a multitude of men do agree, and covenant, every one, with every one, that to whatsoever man, or assembly of men, shall be given by the major part, the right to present the person of them all ...” (222).
Hobbes assumes the interest of the governed is uniform and identical to that of the
sovereign. During times of stress, such as
war, which require
leadership, no matter how obtuse, there is at least a moderate synthesis of interests; the same cannot be said for times of peace. With a lack of unified interests comes an exchange of different ideas. It is in the
sovereign's interest, in fact it is required, to eliminate these
individuals so as to preserve itself.
Hobbes’ view of an individual’s
liberty under his
commonwealth is indeed frightening. While Hobbes never outright states that his proposed government would be what we would label “tyrannical,” it is easy to see that, given his view of the nature of human beings and the power which the sovereign receives, an
oppressive and dominating government is all that would arise, crushing any
notion of an individual, along with its freedoms and interests.
An example of the measures
Hobbes feels must be taken to secure the
commonwealth against the individual is the removal of foreign political texts. “And as to rebellion in particular against monarchy; one of the most frequent causes of it, is the reading of the books of policy, and histories of the ancient
Greeks, and
Romans...” (238-9). Hobbes states that the men which favor these governments “...are unprovided of the antidote of solid reason...” (238). It should be pointed out that the books of policy and histories mentioned are those of governments that uplifted the individual, at least insofar as its contribution to the process of being governed. The sovereign must then
eliminate all sources of such texts, and suppress the voices of the men which support them.
Hobbes views any
rebellion against such a government as deplorable, stating that no government is without its incommodities (227). This seems, to me, an outright dismissal of the very
individual that placed the sovereign in
power. He who granted the sovereign power shows intelligence enough to decide what benefits him most; once a sovereign is placed into power though, this individual no longer can decide for himself. This seem to be a
catch-22.
A
citizen,
slave is more appropriate, of this government is merely a puppet of his master. The only way for such a government to operate is through absolute dissolution of the individual, and a continual war against its uprising again on the part of the sovereign. If we accept Hobbes’ opinion of
human nature, the sovereign will undoubtedly
abuse his power, and use his position to benefit merely himself, reducing the
populace to a state of slavery. As the phrase goes, “
absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The end result of
Hobbes’ government is a
massive contradiction. Despite what
word play may be employed on the part of Hobbes, the
state of war continues. The people will come to be in a constant war with the sovereign to maintain individual identities, and the sovereign himself is in a war; either against another sovereign so as unify his people against someone other than himself, or against his own people so as to maintain his power. And to be sure, a final war awaits, when the individuals become one with a common goal:
elimination of their oppressor.
Works Cited: Cohen, Mitchell, and Fermon, Nicole, eds. Princeton Readings in Political
Thought. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,1996.
This has been a
node your homework production.