Re:On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
by rrggrr on Monday November 20, 2017 @08:02AM
(#15739586)
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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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
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.'
I didn’t understand the last paragraph.
Re:On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
by jszymborski on Monday November 20, 2017 @10:37AM
(#15740618)
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.
Not what I meant, see my comments further down. Opposition is a superior right when faced with certain death at the direction of the sovereign. This has implications in terms of the relationship of Hobbes to political anarchy in cases where politcal anarchy opposes conscription as oppression by the state. [1] Then it becomes a matter of the degree to which death is certain.
[1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DiYlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT180&lpg=...
Re:On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
by jszymborski on Monday November 20, 2017 @12:44PM
(#15741662)
Glad you could clear that up! My inability to interpret your comment is only surpassed by my inability to interpret Hobbes ;)
I enjoyed these, http://philosophybites.com/hobbes/
Are you saying that if the sovereign is trying to kill you, the sovereign overstepped its bounds, or mandate if you will, and you are morally right to oppose?
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.
Yes.
*A Mans Covenant Not To Defend Himselfe, Is Voyd*
A Covenant not to defend my selfe from force, by force, is alwayes voyd.
For (as I have shewed before) no man can transferre, or lay down his
Right to save himselfe from Death, Wounds, and Imprisonment, (the
avoyding whereof is the onely End of laying down any Right,)
and therefore the promise of not resisting force, in no Covenant
transferreth any right; nor is obliging. For though a man may Covenant
thus, "Unlesse I do so, or so, kill me;" he cannot Covenant thus "Unless
I do so, or so, I will not resist you, when you come to kill me." For
man by nature chooseth the lesser evill, which is danger of death in
resisting; rather than the greater, which is certain and present death
in not resisting. And this is granted to be true by all men, in
that they lead Criminals to Execution, and Prison, with armed men,
notwithstanding that such Criminals have consented to the Law, by which
they are condemned.
Re:On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
by ubernostrum on Monday November 20, 2017 @11:59AM
(#15741322)
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.
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_Hobbe...
Re:On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
by ubernostrum on Monday November 20, 2017 @02:34PM
(#15742498)
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.
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."