For week 1 posting I wanted to provide my personal take and thoughts on certain aspects of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. At first I found this book a little difficult given that I am not overall familiar with 17th century literature. Through reading this, I couldn’t help but compare Hobbe’s idea of a commonwealth or sovereign with the government of the United States. I found Chapter XXIX particularly enlightening when comparing the circumstances of an “imperfect institution” to the institution of the United States.
In Chapter XXIX according to Hobbes, a proper commonwealth is designed to “live as long as mankind, or as the laws of nature, or as justice itself, which gives them life”(pg. 199). Hobbes then proceeds by listing numerous circumstances in which a “defectuous procreation” would occur when creating a commonwealth. I feel it is important to note that such a commonwealth would dissolve because of internal pressures, not external.
One doctrine that aids in dissolving a commonwealth is “that every private man has an absolute propriety in his goods” (pg 202). Hobbes is basically stating that if subjects maintain a sense of individual propriety over personal goods, then they are resisting the sovereign's rightful claim to all properties of the commonwealth. This is particularly interesting given the fact that as U.S. citizens we pay private property tax. This implies that “subjects” do have personal property and indeed are resisting the sovereign’s claim. The fact that individuals can own homes, cars, business, etc. is a big part of the American dream and is what draws people to the United States. Will the desire of people to achieve the American dream aid in the dissolution of the United States?
Another doctrine that can dissolve a commonwealth is the separation of church and state, “where one is sovereign, another supreme; where one can make laws, and another make canon(204).” According to Hobbes one institution would have to be subordinate to the other, otherwise contradictions and challenges between the two institutions would occur. This would lead to civil war and dissolution. I found this point especially important given the fact that the United States’ constitution is based on a separation between church and state. Does this mean that the United States is based on failed logic?
While the United States does not have a perfect system, I believe some aspects are noteworthy and therefore thought it pertinent to compare that system with Hobbes’ commonwealth.
I wasn’t sure how to access the contributor side of the Blogspot so I thought that I would comment on a few of the posts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dori that Hobbes’ warnings about the fragility of the commonwealth calls into question that which we take for granted in the United States. But I think that is because Hobbes is unable to conceive of a successful compact like the United States. While the Civil War in England provides a choice between Cromwell and the King, Hobbes appears to be arguing for the King because he has not failed in his sovereign duties. Accepting the overthrow of the king this time will just lead to chaos.
But what made the Founders actions revolutionary was that they were able to break from the trap of a single sovereign. Where Hobbes argued that even a bad sovereign was preferable to the state of nature, the U.S. revolution and eventual constitution secured both the legitimacy of the government and the rights of individuals beyond self-preservation.
The history of the U.S. is not without examples of the government having to use force to coerce action from its own citizens. The federal and state governments even fought a war about sovereignty. But, mostly it seems that the United States has been able to balance the needs of the state and the needs of the people, without succumbing to a Hobbesian world.
Thanks for the insight Amit. I never considered it, but perhaps you are right that Hobbes couldn't conceive of a government like the United States and therefore, made his conditions as such.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your statement that, "Hobbes is basically stating that if subjects maintain a sense of individual propriety over personal goods, then they are resisting the sovereign's rightful claim to all properties of the commonwealth. This is particularly interesting given the fact that as U.S. citizens we pay private property tax." brings a very interesting perspective to the reading. Hobbes was a classical realist in that he holds the "contract" with the state over individual rights. I don't know that he wasn't able to conceive of a nation such as the US so much as his ideals for a nation were grounded in the foundations of realism and man's primal objective being security propagated by the necessity of war.
ReplyDeleteThe US is grounded in a more liberal approach where the ability to preserve freedom of speech and civil rights bonds state members together in order to achieve these common goals.
In reference to the separation of church and state, again Hobbes takes the theory that there can only be one in power, i.e. you can not serve two Gods at once...Pun intended. At the time of the Enlightenment, the church still held much power which was political as much as it was religious. It was his intent, I believe, to discuss this power in public forum to evoke as much thought about alternate possibilities as the times allowed. It's also ironic that he chose to name his book after a religious reference.
Hobbes was eventually ostracized from his academic circles for his views, though is work lives on for future generations.