3 ms·

> Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such

> Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false. For example, there is no one common power that controls all American and British people. Yet Americans and British people travel to each other's homes, have relationships with each other, trade with each other, and sometimes even move from one country to another. All of this is done peacefully, with no common power that controls both sides of the equation. Same thing with relationships between Swiss people and Japanese people, or Chinese people and Egyptians, or Brazilians and Indians, or anybody else that you choose. If Hobbes' idea was true, wouldn't the relationship between two average people that have no common power be rather warlike rather than the mutually beneficially peaceful relationships that we see every day?

ubernostrum 13y ago
As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false. Or we can observe that though someone may travel abroad, at home they are subject to a power (their home country's laws) and abroad they are subject to a power (the laws of the country they're visiting). And then we can observe that your analogy really works best with the countries themselves, and of course the history of international relations is full of countries respecting each others' territory, sovereignty, etc. without any need for some third party to exercise power and hold them in check. Right? Right?
jbooth 13y ago
You're going to say that the way nation-states deal with each other proves some sort of inviolable human rights? Have you read much history?
james3 13y ago
I have never read Hobbes but it sounds like his notion 'Common Power' could be more than a governing entity. Although trade is done peacefully without bloodshed I think that smaller societies realize that refusal to go along with larger societies' best interest would mean war, obviously this would not be good for the smaller society. So smaller societies co-operate and trade because they know they are better off doing so.

ubernostrum 13y ago

As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false. Or we can observe that though someone may travel abroad, at home they are subject to a power (their home country's laws) and abroad they are subject to a power (the laws of the country they're visiting). And then we can observe that your analogy really works best with the countries themselves, and of course the history of international relations is full of countries respecting each others' territory, sovereignty, etc. without any need for some third party to exercise power and hold them in check. Right? Right?

jbooth 13y ago

You're going to say that the way nation-states deal with each other proves some sort of inviolable human rights? Have you read much history?

james3 13y ago

I have never read Hobbes but it sounds like his notion 'Common Power' could be more than a governing entity. Although trade is done peacefully without bloodshed I think that smaller societies realize that refusal to go along with larger societies' best interest would mean war, obviously this would not be good for the smaller society. So smaller societies co-operate and trade because they know they are better off doing so.