Thomas Hobbes Democracy

The revolution generated radical changes in the principles, opinions, and sentiments of the global people. New ideas and issues affected political ideas. In addition a new government was also changed. A few of the many enlightenment thinkers were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, baron Do Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Thomas Hobbes was a proponent of the monarchal system and in this paper I will prove that Hobbes was right in supporting the monarchal system of government, I will also show the opposing school of thought, and finally, I will give you my opinion on the monarchal system. Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588-1679 and throughout most of his life there was violence going on all around him. The biggest case was the English Civil War. This war lasted about seven years and it overthrew the monarchy, which England had established many years before. After this revolution, shaky governments ruled the land for several years. But then, the English went back to the monarchal system. These times shaped Hobbes’ views

The Commonwealth is a voluntary intergovernmental association between many different states that are mostly ruled by the Britain

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

I think that Hobbes’s idea of a strong authoritarian government would probably justify the US policy about surveillance. Since a commonwealth is instituted mainly to protect the people, who have singed this social contract in order to escape from the short and poor life of the state of nature, the sovereign should do whatever it is necessary to guarantee protection to its own citizens. In fact, as Hobbes says: if a government is no longer able to keep people safe, then the social contract is no valid anymore. So, assuming that the US policy main goal is to protect Americans from external threatens (i.e. terroristic attacks), it is in line with Hobbes’s argument.

Jefferson’s democracy is sometimes referred to as capitalized and was one of the dominant movements and outlooks in the United States in 1790s to 18220s. Popularized by Thomas Jefferson, this democracy advocated for a political system that favored free voting, free press, public education, limited government and discouraged aristocratic rule. Further, it emphasized on the strict interpretation and implementation of the constitution as well as embracing agrarian democracy that opted to give power to those who fought for independence. He supported the strengthening of the states as he believed in a devolved system that decentralizes power to ensure citizens benefit more. Finally, Jefferson believed in equality popularized by the quote, “all men

Relating to Hobbes statement there are many reasons why a commonwealth is similar to a state because in America there are four states that are identified as commonwealths such as Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. The United States has many territories, but only two are commonwealths also such as Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico because for this term commonwealth means a land that is united with the United States. For one past connection, the names developed from the Revolutionary War when the nation was a previous British Province. For the whole system, commonwealth determines an organized political association, which is what we call a state today. Many people still use the name commonwealth throughout these states for example that is why there is a college called Virginia Commonwealth University and another called Virginia State University. Hobbes dictated that civilization does need a leader to represent them.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

Thomas Hobbes claims that in a state of nature, people are constantly fighting against each other, and the only way to overcome this is to form a commonwealth. He does this by going over the conditions that describe a state of nature, certain rights that all people have in nature, and the method for transferring these rights, by way of a pledge to a sovereign, whether it to the one person, or a group of people in order to achieve a state of peace. While Hobbes makes a very clear argument, it does contain some faults when examined. Hobbes addresses these issues and tries to convince the reader that a commonwealth is the only way a society will experience lasting peace.

In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

Essentially a royalist and a belief in the selfishness and vanity of the       individual, he espoused that men should join together in the formation of       a commonwealth, one with a sovereign, to whom all responsibility for       social order and public welfare would be entrusted to (Kemerling). He felt       that investing power in a single natural person who can choose advisors       and rule consistently without fear of internal conflicts is the best       fulfillment of our social needs (Kemerling). Hobbes had two reasons why a       sovereign was needed: to protect the citizens from themselves and to       protect the nation from other nations. When men are together, without a       master, they tend to be aggressive and malicious towards each other. The       causes of this are usually competition, diffidence, and glory (Blanchard).

According to the rules described by Hobbes in Leviathan, I would not like to live in a Commonwealth. The characteristics that discourage me from living in Hobbes’ Commonwealth are 1) the defense of a monarchy as the best constitution, 2) the exemption of the Sovereign from civil laws and social contract, and his or her intact human nature resulting from these exemptions 3) subjects’ restrictions to do things such as protest due to their covenant and 4) all who are not citizens are enemies. These characteristics differ immensely from the way in which my home country, The United States of America, operates.

Through assessing both monarchy and democracy from both perspectives of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, one can see that democracy creates the most beneficial outcome. Hobbes had a pessimistic view of people. He believed humans were selfish, doing anything to further their own position in life. Hobbes believed in an absolute monarchy, a government that gave all the power to a king or queen. Even though he distrusted democracy, he believed that a diverse group of representatives present the problems of the common people would prevent a king from being unfair and cruel. Today, many people associate the ideals Locke adopts with democracy. Although, in Locke’s book, Second Treatise of Government, he did not solely focus on democracy. He listed many types of government, not favoring any. He believed that as long as they adhere to his rules, they remain valid.

A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone