8 ms·

On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan

41 points by submeta 9y ago

rrggrr 9y ago
What is this doing on HN you may ask? I'm not the OP, but the Leviathan was a study on power and trade-offs. Hobbes would have been aghast at the largely unchecked power Facebook, Google, etc. hold. The absence of any social contract, one that is otherwise present between the individual and government, means these multinational corporations are free to (very effectively) compete with Governments for power, with little upside for the individual & society.
- brudgers 9y ago
  The Hobbesian sovereign has only one source of authority, keeping the peace. To the degree multi-nationals keep the peace they have legitimate claims to Hobbesian sovereignty. I'm not saying that Hobbesian sovereignty is a good thing, just pointing to the philosophical mileposts. Locke != Hobbes The only time an individual has the right to oppose the Hobbesian Sovereign is on their way to the gallows. Otherwise, the social contract holds.
  - jacobush 9y ago
    I didn’t understand the last paragraph.
    - jszymborski 9y ago
      Not OP, but I think the point trying to be made by that last sentence is that in a world ruled by a Hobbesian Sovereign, no single individual has the right to oppose the sovereign. Such rebellion in a Hobbesian world should and would be a punished as a capital offence.
      - anvandare 9y ago
        I read it more as OP meaning the social contract is not a suicide pact. Which is correct: a contract must be beneficial to both parties.
        ubernostrum 9y ago
        a contract must be beneficial to both parties. Except this isn't Hobbes' position. In his system, the benefit to the populace as a whole occurs only once: at the time the sovereign is invested with authority, ending the "war of all against all". Once the sovereign has been given power, that's it. In Hobbes' system there are no further responsibilities on the sovereign's part to wield that power for a good purpose. There is no concept of power retained by the people, or power to overthrow the sovereign in the event the sovereign fails to provide what the people desire. In fact, such an idea is a contradiction in terms in Hobbes' system; there can be no power other than that which is possessed by the sovereign, because in Hobbes' system all power is ceded permanently and irrevocably to the sovereign.
        brudgers 9y ago
        The ongoing benefit of the social contract is that the sovereign keeps the peace. If the sovereign fails to keep the peace, the sovereign is no longer sovereign (in the Hobbesian sense of 'sovereign'). As Dennis the Peasant says "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses." [1] That's why Leviathan's frontspiece [2] depicts the body sovereign as comprising many individuals rather than solid. [1]: "not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leviathan_by_Thomas_Hobbes.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leviathan_by_Thomas_Hobbe...
        ubernostrum 9y ago
        Humor aside, Hobbes would not agree with you. He explicitly denies that the covenant can be breached by the sovereign, and explicitly denies that the people would have the right to remove or alter the government of the sovereign. Any principle of the sovereign "breaching" the covenant is non-Hobbesian, and probably a confusion with the theories of John Locke, which were radically different.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - apsophus 9y ago
    Except that the whole point of Hobbes's sovereign is that there can be only one, because in his system divided sovereignty leads to anarchy. So any other entity that looks capable of sharing aspects of sovereignty with government is anathema to Hobbes - even if that entity also 'keeps the peace.'
- no_flags 9y ago
  As I see it, Facebook and Google actually do one better than a social contract. They have a real contract with every individual user in the form of the EULA. I think you could even say they have a social contract too, that being the public's general understanding of what Facebook/Google offer and what they give in return. The argument for societal consent to Google/Facebook seems very easy compared to societal consent to government authority, even in a democracy. But I don't put much stock in social contracts as an ethical argument anyway. I tend to agree with Lysander Spooner's arguments, e.g. on the Constitution: "No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service."
weeksie 9y ago
Off-topic, tangental, but related. In a fit of sheer political science nerdery I got the Sovereign from the cover of Leviathan tattooed on my shoulder. Been wanting it for years but finally got it done a couple weeks ago.
hyperion2010 9y ago
If Syria has taught is anything I hope it is that Hobbes is right -- however bad you think your current government is, civil war or revolution is worse.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Syria tells us nothing, there are many, many governments feeding that war.
- pmyteh 9y ago
  I think the difficulty with this as a general proposition is that not all rebellions/coups/revolutions end up like Syria. With the benefit of hindsight it seems clear that almost everyone would have been better off leaving Assad be. But this can't be universally true for two reasons. First, not all revolutions end up like Syria. Relatively bloodless coups are common, and even many civil wars with fighting are much less bloody and disruptive than the Syrian civil war - the US war of independence might be one example. The second is simply that if no revolution is justifiable, there's nothing to make a despotic monarch give any attention to the needs of their people - as the people will 'sensibly' not revolt anyway. So on the one hand Germans shouldn't resist the holocaust, or Cambodians the killing fields, and on the other you get figures like Charles I and various French Louis' making tensions in their countries far worse because they believe their position is secure. Neither is a template for a happy society.
- brudgers 9y ago
  The American Civil War suggests the opposite may be true when the "your" in "your government" starts to become unpacked. "All civil wars are bad" produces logical contradictions such as both the rise and the fall of the Soviet Union were bad.
  - jabretti 9y ago
    The US Civil War killed 620,000 people, and ruined the lives of many others. That's pretty freaking bad. On the upside, it freed about 3.9 million slaves, but really there should have been a less costly political solution to the slavery problem, as was found in every other country in the Americas at around the same time. >"All civil wars are bad" produces logical contradictions such as both the rise and the fall of the Soviet Union were bad. The fall of the Soviet Union didn't occasion a Civil War.
scarecrowbob 9y ago
Kind of tangental, but I've started this history of civilization that was recommended to me by some anarchist friends and which frames the parts I've read in terms of that Leviathan. So far it's been interesting if not super convincing: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan.pdf https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-agains...
pmyteh 9y ago
It's a fascinating book, though the social contract theory that has been built on it is quite problematic. Coincidentally, this week's instalment of Existential Comics features Hobbes, and is both funny and incisive: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/211 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/211
accordionclown 9y ago
i've noticed that, whenever an adult enters the picture, hobbes turns from a bundle of energy into a paper tiger.

41 points by submeta 9y ago

What is this doing on HN you may ask? I'm not the OP, but the Leviathan was a study on power and trade-offs. Hobbes would have been aghast at the largely unchecked power Facebook, Google, etc. hold. The absence of any social contract, one that is otherwise present between the individual and government, means these multinational corporations are free to (very effectively) compete with Governments for power, with little upside for the individual & society.

brudgers 9y ago
The Hobbesian sovereign has only one source of authority, keeping the peace. To the degree multi-nationals keep the peace they have legitimate claims to Hobbesian sovereignty. I'm not saying that Hobbesian sovereignty is a good thing, just pointing to the philosophical mileposts. Locke != Hobbes The only time an individual has the right to oppose the Hobbesian Sovereign is on their way to the gallows. Otherwise, the social contract holds.
- jacobush 9y ago
  I didn’t understand the last paragraph.
  - jszymborski 9y ago
    Not OP, but I think the point trying to be made by that last sentence is that in a world ruled by a Hobbesian Sovereign, no single individual has the right to oppose the sovereign. Such rebellion in a Hobbesian world should and would be a punished as a capital offence.
    - anvandare 9y ago
      I read it more as OP meaning the social contract is not a suicide pact. Which is correct: a contract must be beneficial to both parties.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        a contract must be beneficial to both parties. Except this isn't Hobbes' position. In his system, the benefit to the populace as a whole occurs only once: at the time the sovereign is invested with authority, ending the "war of all against all". Once the sovereign has been given power, that's it. In Hobbes' system there are no further responsibilities on the sovereign's part to wield that power for a good purpose. There is no concept of power retained by the people, or power to overthrow the sovereign in the event the sovereign fails to provide what the people desire. In fact, such an idea is a contradiction in terms in Hobbes' system; there can be no power other than that which is possessed by the sovereign, because in Hobbes' system all power is ceded permanently and irrevocably to the sovereign.
        brudgers 9y ago
        The ongoing benefit of the social contract is that the sovereign keeps the peace. If the sovereign fails to keep the peace, the sovereign is no longer sovereign (in the Hobbesian sense of 'sovereign'). As Dennis the Peasant says "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses." [1] That's why Leviathan's frontspiece [2] depicts the body sovereign as comprising many individuals rather than solid. [1]: "not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leviathan_by_Thomas_Hobbes.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leviathan_by_Thomas_Hobbe...
        ubernostrum 9y ago
        Humor aside, Hobbes would not agree with you. He explicitly denies that the covenant can be breached by the sovereign, and explicitly denies that the people would have the right to remove or alter the government of the sovereign. Any principle of the sovereign "breaching" the covenant is non-Hobbesian, and probably a confusion with the theories of John Locke, which were radically different.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- apsophus 9y ago
  Except that the whole point of Hobbes's sovereign is that there can be only one, because in his system divided sovereignty leads to anarchy. So any other entity that looks capable of sharing aspects of sovereignty with government is anathema to Hobbes - even if that entity also 'keeps the peace.'
no_flags 9y ago
As I see it, Facebook and Google actually do one better than a social contract. They have a real contract with every individual user in the form of the EULA. I think you could even say they have a social contract too, that being the public's general understanding of what Facebook/Google offer and what they give in return. The argument for societal consent to Google/Facebook seems very easy compared to societal consent to government authority, even in a democracy. But I don't put much stock in social contracts as an ethical argument anyway. I tend to agree with Lysander Spooner's arguments, e.g. on the Constitution: "No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service."

weeksie 9y ago

Off-topic, tangental, but related. In a fit of sheer political science nerdery I got the Sovereign from the cover of Leviathan tattooed on my shoulder. Been wanting it for years but finally got it done a couple weeks ago.

hyperion2010 9y ago

If Syria has taught is anything I hope it is that Hobbes is right -- however bad you think your current government is, civil war or revolution is worse.

icebraining 9y ago
Syria tells us nothing, there are many, many governments feeding that war.
pmyteh 9y ago
I think the difficulty with this as a general proposition is that not all rebellions/coups/revolutions end up like Syria. With the benefit of hindsight it seems clear that almost everyone would have been better off leaving Assad be. But this can't be universally true for two reasons. First, not all revolutions end up like Syria. Relatively bloodless coups are common, and even many civil wars with fighting are much less bloody and disruptive than the Syrian civil war - the US war of independence might be one example. The second is simply that if no revolution is justifiable, there's nothing to make a despotic monarch give any attention to the needs of their people - as the people will 'sensibly' not revolt anyway. So on the one hand Germans shouldn't resist the holocaust, or Cambodians the killing fields, and on the other you get figures like Charles I and various French Louis' making tensions in their countries far worse because they believe their position is secure. Neither is a template for a happy society.
brudgers 9y ago
The American Civil War suggests the opposite may be true when the "your" in "your government" starts to become unpacked. "All civil wars are bad" produces logical contradictions such as both the rise and the fall of the Soviet Union were bad.
- jabretti 9y ago
  The US Civil War killed 620,000 people, and ruined the lives of many others. That's pretty freaking bad. On the upside, it freed about 3.9 million slaves, but really there should have been a less costly political solution to the slavery problem, as was found in every other country in the Americas at around the same time. >"All civil wars are bad" produces logical contradictions such as both the rise and the fall of the Soviet Union were bad. The fall of the Soviet Union didn't occasion a Civil War.

scarecrowbob 9y ago

Kind of tangental, but I've started this history of civilization that was recommended to me by some anarchist friends and which frames the parts I've read in terms of that Leviathan. So far it's been interesting if not super convincing: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan.pdf https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-agains...

pmyteh 9y ago

It's a fascinating book, though the social contract theory that has been built on it is quite problematic. Coincidentally, this week's instalment of Existential Comics features Hobbes, and is both funny and incisive: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/211 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/211

accordionclown 9y ago

i've noticed that, whenever an adult enters the picture, hobbes turns from a bundle of energy into a paper tiger.