3 ms·

Hobbes Mail makes no sense; either you're in the condition of the war of all against all (no thanks) or you've surrendered everything to a single sovereign (no

by kenko 13y ago

Hobbes Mail makes no sense; either you're in the condition of the war of all against all (no thanks) or you've surrendered everything to a single sovereign (no thanks).

networked 13y ago
>or you've surrendered everything to a single sovereign Well, Bruce Schneier has argued that that's what security is becoming today: feudal (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/feudal_sec.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/feudal_sec.ht...). If you wanted to, you could instead call most if not all currently existing email services "Hobbes mail".
- gknoy 13y ago
  Yes, but it would seem that a system like this is intended to work counter that, by keeping your communications secure from all.
sandstrom 13y ago
Haha, a valid point! :) I wasn't thinking of Leviathan, rather some of his thoughts on liberalism[1]. The right of the individual, that political power should represent the people etc. [1] Liberalism in it's classic and original sense (not the skewed meaning that it somehow has gotten here in the US). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#American_versus_European_use_of_the_term_.22liberalism.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United...
- vidarh 13y ago
  His thoughts on liberalism are deeply connected with his social contract theory. He believed the strong central government was a necessity to protect the right of the individual, and that so individuals do cede power to the sovereign by acceding to a social contract. The social contract of Hobbes is not something one can opt out of, or refuse, but an explanation and justification for individual rights within an absolute monarchy. At the same time Hobbes argued that to preserve the peace was so central that the sovereign had the power, and was indeed duty bound under the social contract, to take whatever measures necessary to ensure peace - even authoritarian measures. His ideas on social contract theory are historically important as a pre-cursor to more expansive ideas about personal freedoms, but they are extremely authoritarian by most modern standards.

by kenko 13y ago

Hobbes Mail makes no sense; either you're in the condition of the war of all against all (no thanks) or you've surrendered everything to a single sovereign (no thanks).

networked 13y ago

>or you've surrendered everything to a single sovereign Well, Bruce Schneier has argued that that's what security is becoming today: feudal (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/feudal_sec.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/feudal_sec.ht...). If you wanted to, you could instead call most if not all currently existing email services "Hobbes mail".

gknoy 13y ago
Yes, but it would seem that a system like this is intended to work counter that, by keeping your communications secure from all.

sandstrom 13y ago

Haha, a valid point! :) I wasn't thinking of Leviathan, rather some of his thoughts on liberalism[1]. The right of the individual, that political power should represent the people etc. [1] Liberalism in it's classic and original sense (not the skewed meaning that it somehow has gotten here in the US). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#American_versus_European_use_of_the_term_.22liberalism.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United...

vidarh 13y ago
His thoughts on liberalism are deeply connected with his social contract theory. He believed the strong central government was a necessity to protect the right of the individual, and that so individuals do cede power to the sovereign by acceding to a social contract. The social contract of Hobbes is not something one can opt out of, or refuse, but an explanation and justification for individual rights within an absolute monarchy. At the same time Hobbes argued that to preserve the peace was so central that the sovereign had the power, and was indeed duty bound under the social contract, to take whatever measures necessary to ensure peace - even authoritarian measures. His ideas on social contract theory are historically important as a pre-cursor to more expansive ideas about personal freedoms, but they are extremely authoritarian by most modern standards.