We All Need a Little Leviathan to Lean On
Perhaps Hobbes' Leviathan is a dated work that reflects upon the negative aspects of human nature. It is possible that all humans are capable of intellectual conversation, agreement, and a general willingness to accept peaceful dealings for the betterment of mankind. It might even be realistic to think that, as a people, we can choose the best possible government to reflect a fair and equal society. Unfortunately, this world is still waiting for an example of a utopian society brought about by the good nature of man.
I am not trying to discredit the human race, we have some pretty great qualities. I also do not claim that humans are evil; I am still a dreamer at heart for the possibility of world peace and understanding. I would argue, however, that Libya, Iraq, and many other countries would have benefited from simply maintaining their repressive regimes, as opposed to the total, violent anarchy that has become their reality. Not every country is the same, and Hobbes does not lay out a blueprint for the world, but his theories can't be discredited for the sake of propping up our American Democracy on a pedestal.
"During the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre (Hobbes, 70)." Tribal society is fraught with conflicts that play out in a bloody series of painful dramas. While globalization and man-made borders have added to these conflicts, the "Feare of death" is sometimes the only thing that holds fragile society together. In fact, without the fear of death, crime seems to be rampant, even in Democratic society. Is the reason that the United States has such high rates of violent crime the fact that simple incarceration is the only punishment that awaits the felon? For a country that bestows such power into the hands of its populace, there is a vast disparity between rich and poor that mocks the claims of equality for all. The "presumption of riches" allows crime to flourish when the rich feel they can escape the fate of the less fortunate.
Hobbes claimed that by appointing "one Man, or (an) Assembly of men," a commonwealth could be created by giving up small freedoms for security (Hobbes, 95). One could argue this is exactly what we have done with our representative government, except that power is handed off, sometimes at the expense of stability. Our bi-party system often seems broken, bi-polar, and unable to govern with a cohesive plan for the future. As authoritarian regimes such as China push their economies forward, Democracies are left in a deadlock, often unable to proceed at the expense of national interest. If the argument is for human rights, than look no further than the skewed rates of incarceration for minorities, the power of the wealthy class, or the injustice bread by inequality of education that dooms the poor to remain poor as the rich surge forward. Shouldn't we be afforded equal rights, even if that means we all must give up a little?
It may be unfair that the "Soveraign" has absolute power, but is this any worse than a ruling class of elites that can lobby and purchase what they wish? In America, perhaps this is the argument, but in those cases of Iraq or Libya, was tyrannical rule truly worse than the chaos that our own self interest brought them? The Arab spring came and went, but Libya is still a warring nation without a leader and without law. Iraq is even more unstable than it was under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam. I don't argue that these were good examples of order, but I do argue that this order was better than the reality these people currently face.
There is no perfect society, so we must accept that different theories might work for different nations. Hobbes' strong government might be better suited for a "to be" nation, where the group mentality is better suited to a powerful figure that can control dissent. Even in America,however, the issue of spread out power has begun to corrode our nation and our shared identity. A covenant that is amended, rewritten, and changed (at times by a simple tweet), shows weakness that is slowly breeding strife and instability. Perhaps the brutish nature of man is beginning to show its need for a stronger hand to corral our beastly nature.
Hobbes, T., Flathman, R. E., & Johnston, D. (1997). Leviathan. New York: W.W. Norton.
I am not trying to discredit the human race, we have some pretty great qualities. I also do not claim that humans are evil; I am still a dreamer at heart for the possibility of world peace and understanding. I would argue, however, that Libya, Iraq, and many other countries would have benefited from simply maintaining their repressive regimes, as opposed to the total, violent anarchy that has become their reality. Not every country is the same, and Hobbes does not lay out a blueprint for the world, but his theories can't be discredited for the sake of propping up our American Democracy on a pedestal.
"During the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre (Hobbes, 70)." Tribal society is fraught with conflicts that play out in a bloody series of painful dramas. While globalization and man-made borders have added to these conflicts, the "Feare of death" is sometimes the only thing that holds fragile society together. In fact, without the fear of death, crime seems to be rampant, even in Democratic society. Is the reason that the United States has such high rates of violent crime the fact that simple incarceration is the only punishment that awaits the felon? For a country that bestows such power into the hands of its populace, there is a vast disparity between rich and poor that mocks the claims of equality for all. The "presumption of riches" allows crime to flourish when the rich feel they can escape the fate of the less fortunate.
Hobbes claimed that by appointing "one Man, or (an) Assembly of men," a commonwealth could be created by giving up small freedoms for security (Hobbes, 95). One could argue this is exactly what we have done with our representative government, except that power is handed off, sometimes at the expense of stability. Our bi-party system often seems broken, bi-polar, and unable to govern with a cohesive plan for the future. As authoritarian regimes such as China push their economies forward, Democracies are left in a deadlock, often unable to proceed at the expense of national interest. If the argument is for human rights, than look no further than the skewed rates of incarceration for minorities, the power of the wealthy class, or the injustice bread by inequality of education that dooms the poor to remain poor as the rich surge forward. Shouldn't we be afforded equal rights, even if that means we all must give up a little?
It may be unfair that the "Soveraign" has absolute power, but is this any worse than a ruling class of elites that can lobby and purchase what they wish? In America, perhaps this is the argument, but in those cases of Iraq or Libya, was tyrannical rule truly worse than the chaos that our own self interest brought them? The Arab spring came and went, but Libya is still a warring nation without a leader and without law. Iraq is even more unstable than it was under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam. I don't argue that these were good examples of order, but I do argue that this order was better than the reality these people currently face.
There is no perfect society, so we must accept that different theories might work for different nations. Hobbes' strong government might be better suited for a "to be" nation, where the group mentality is better suited to a powerful figure that can control dissent. Even in America,however, the issue of spread out power has begun to corrode our nation and our shared identity. A covenant that is amended, rewritten, and changed (at times by a simple tweet), shows weakness that is slowly breeding strife and instability. Perhaps the brutish nature of man is beginning to show its need for a stronger hand to corral our beastly nature.
Hobbes, T., Flathman, R. E., & Johnston, D. (1997). Leviathan. New York: W.W. Norton.
Two of your points stood out to me particularly strongly. Firstly, your observation that high rates of violent crime in the US could be attributed to a lack of, or limited corporal punishment. I wonder if I could get your thoughts on a contrasting theory. Lets say that significant portion of gun violence in the US stems from gang/drug/both related activity. That is an environment in which there is a regular fear of death, from rival gangs, overdose, what have you. That fear doesn't seem to have perceptibly stemmed the tide of violence, do you think that Hobbes would say that we are due for a system change, or do you think he would see it as a newly developed system all to its own?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, regarding lobbysists. It does seem to match with Hobbes' definition of a monopoly, but do you think that in his view we should have a right to complain about it, as we the citizen helped to create the cycle of money and influence?