1

The Leviathan by Hobbes (1642-1651) Leviathan was written during the English Civil War, which impacted his famous motto of bellum omnium contra omnes (the war of all against all) and his argument for absolute monarchy to avert civil war by strong central government. Hobbess is a political theory, and not a moralistic theory. Although he had his views (and a couple of laws of nature) addressing moral values, but that is a tangential issue that he deals with in this document. His main concern in this social contract is to establish order in the society, so that the society can be protected from not only internal decay, but also from external threats. What is the nature of the normative problem? Hobbes sought to discover rational principles for the construction of a civil polity that would not be subject to destruction from within. He defines the state of nature as the baseline of any society in the absence of a central authoritative body responsible for bringing order to the society. His state of nature is defined by the following three basic instinctive traits of humans: Competition makes people invade for gain Diffidence makes people invade for safety as a result of insecurity Glory makes people invade for reputation

At the natural state of men, there is no economic activity, no cultivation; life is lonely, poor, brutish, and short. State of nature is governed by natural laws, such as law of reason to pursue ones own power to preserve his life and possessing whatever he can get. He does not necessarily consider human beings as evil, rather he is worried about stark similarity in the way all of us think, behave, and perceive events, and respond to them. He believes that while people have local affections, their benevolence is limited, and they have a tendency to partiality. Concerned that others should agree with their own high opinions of themselves, people are sensitive to slights. They are curious about the causes of events, and anxious about their futures; according to Hobbes, these characteristics incline people to adopt religious beliefs, thereby increasing the potential to precipitate the state of nature quite a bit. How can that problem be solved? Individuals enter a social contract to avoid death and achieve perpetual peace. Creation of a commonwealth is possible through peoples free transfer of rights to a common political authority named the Leviathan. People give their consent to the sovereign and become subjects by their own will. Hobbes finds absolutist monarchy as the most efficient form of the political nature of the sovereign.

How does Hobbes support this argument? The Leviathan is appointed for the pursuit of the liberty of living. Social contract is actually a submission: A transfer of rights from free, equal people, destroying each other in the state of nature, to the monarch who can prevent civil war. In a commonwealth, there is a power greater than all the people to enforce their agreement to give up some of their rights and live in peace. The rights of the sovereign are inseparable. If sovereign has the right to control the army, but not to collect taxes, then he would not be able to support an army. Similarly, if the sovereign had the right to make laws, but not to enforce them by acting as judge, then the laws would not be useful. What is the implication for the larger framework? Hobbes is concerned with the avoidance of the greatest evil (death and war), the purpose of government, and the reach of its power. Since the social covenant requires the sovereign to act as the arbiter among disputing individuals, he has an important responsibility of providing meaning to different words e.g. justice, morality, protection, equality, etc. with an intention to restore order in the society. This is, of course, in addition to sovereigns responsibility of providing security, economic well-being, and social prosperity to his subjects. Although, individuals still have the right to revoke the social covenant with the sovereign in order to protect their true liberties by resisting sovereign commands to perform actions that would seriously jeopardize subjects safety or filial duties, yet, according to Pettit, the framework falls apart, if the sovereign enjoys the right to define the meaning and application of such terms as filial duty, safety, self-concern, danger, protect, etc. Broader meaning of Hobbess theory, and its various nuances to other fields of policy Hobbess theory and international relations a realist approach: One of the examples that Hobbes gives of his state of nature, is that all sovereigns (read countries) are in this state with respect to one another. This makes him the father of classic realist theory of international relations. However, unlike his concept of establishing a legal order through a covenant between subjects and the sovereign (Leviathan), he dances around the idea of proposing a similar arrangement to protect international legal order, but does not venture to explicitly state it. He considers that states, unlike individuals, do not grow old or get frail, and therefore are less susceptible to the temptation of encroaching upon each others resources. Therefore, he argues, that such a situation may not arise when a similar social contract is needed for international system. However, as we have witnessed, states have shown equal susceptibility to fall prey to their greed, insecurity, and/or vain-gloriousness to attack others. To some extent, bilateral and multilateral arrangements for arbitration and/or protection (for example, NATO, United Nations, and International Court of Justice) can be seen as an extension of Hobbess Leviathan in the international order to some extent, if not fully.

Hobbes and the game theory: One of the unanswered questions from Hobbess social contract theory is as to what is the exact reason that makes it the case (supposing Hobbes is right) that our communal life is prone to disaster when we are left to interact according only to our own individual judgments. There could be only one of two reasons: 1) either individuals are not rational and indulge their current behavior without properly realizing its impact over their long-term interest; 2) alternatively, it may be that people in the state of nature are fully rational, but are trapped in a situation that makes it individually rational for each to act in a way that is sub-optimal for all, perhaps finding themselves in the familiar prisoner's dilemma of game theory. Distinctions between Hobbes and Locke: Locke argues that the state of nature is indeed to be preferred over subjection to the arbitrary power of an absolute sovereign; Hobbes, on the other hand, is of the view that master-less men do not have the capability to bring justice to a society, and in order to bring greedy, insecure, and self-centered men under control, a strong Leviathan is necessary. One subtle distinction between Hobbes and Locke is that in the eyes of Hobbes, all men are very similar to each other in thinking, perceiving, and behaving; and the fact that insecurity of all men against each other at the same time can spiral out of control, has the potential to run a society amok. Locke, on the other hand brings to attention human beings ability to reason, and to show restraint (by perceiving that others are not necessarily evil). Locke goes on to the extent of condoning aggression only as a defensive measure (when ones property is encroached upon, for example). Locke prefers establishment of institutions, and more importantly accountability of those institutions before civil society as the cornerstone of his theory. Hobbes is little murky in this regard in the sense that although he also spells out checks in his theory, ensuring protection of basic liberty of subjects, and goes to the extent of allowing resistance and even revoking the social contract if sovereign encroaches upon subjects true liberties, yet he fails to clearly state as to who will determine whether subjects true liberties are usurped by the sovereign.

Distinctions Between Hobbes and Nozick Both Hobbes and Nozick are driven by the same fear, that is the fear of attack from fellow citizens encroaching upon ones property, or fighting over resources in general. Unlike Rawls veil of ignorance where no one is certain about where the resources being distributed came from, both Hobbes and Nozick are very clear that resources and properties come attached to the individuals, and therefore it is impossible for men to not to run into conflict over the rights of these resources. However, contrary to the political and societal setup proposed by Nozick (minimal state), Hobbes goes to the other extreme by ceding (almost all of) the individuals power to the sovereign in order o ensure fair (if not equitable) distribution of resources, and thereby restoring order in the society. Hobbes is close to Locke in this regard than he is to Nozick in the sense that both Locke and Hobbes believe in the power of the state (be it an authoritarian state (for Hobbes), or a representative one (Locke)). Nozick, on the other hand, is dismissive of the idea of

ceding more power to the government than is necessary. He doesnt even want the government to collect taxes from what he considers is the individuals property and thus has nothing to do with the government. Hobbes argues in the favor of government collecting taxes by stating that if Leviathan is responsible for keeping an army (for protecting the society from internal and external threats), how can he do so without having the ability to pay for it? Possible applications/extensions of Hobbes theory from the exam point of view: 1) Nuclear proliferation and arms control regimes can be seen as an example of Hobbess Leviathan, though a little different in nature than the one proposed by him. A similar example is International Court of Justice where individual countries cede their powers to a central authority to act as arbiter and solve their disputes for them. 2) Humanitarian intervention (diplomatic, if not necessarily military) could be another candidate for establishment of international legal order on the lines of what Hobbes propose for an individual country. The example can be very compelling in case a Sovereign/dictator is not honoring social contract with his own people, and is a threat to international legal order, especially in todays globalized world where interests of individual countries are highly integrated with each other, and instability in one part of the world has the potential to affect global economy in more ways than one. 3) In my view, Hobbess model has the potential (although with some tweaking) to be adopted as a means to establish order in todays globalized world where fates of countries (and of their people) are very closely knit with each other. Leaving such highly wired world to mere supposition of sovereigns (countries) rationality is very risky, to say the least. Allisons Rational Actor Model relies very heavily on an individuals rational thinking, and may lead to catastrophe (at least in terms of international security), thereby affecting the whole world. Short summary of the book: State of nature: All people are naturally equal and as the weakest is capable of killing the strongest by some means, a battle is inevitable when two people have an appetite for the same scarce resource. Hobbes describes this "state of nature" as follows: "During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called war; and such a war, is of every man, against every man. In such condition, there is no place for industry, no culture of the earth, no navigation, no commodious buildings, no instruments of moving, no knowledge, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The laws of nature: Hobbes argues that each of us, as a rational being, can see that a war of all against all is inimical to the satisfaction of her interests, and so can agree that, peace is good, and therefore also the

way or means of peace are good. Hobbes calls these practical imperatives laws of nature, the sum of which is not to treat others in ways we would not have them treat us. Leviathan or the sovereign: A multitude of men are made one person when they are by one man, or one person, represented; so that it be done with the consent of every one of that multitude in particular. When people mutually covenant each to the others to obey a common authority, they have established what Hobbes calls sovereignty by institution. When, threatened by a conqueror, they covenant for protection by promising obedience, they have established sovereignty by acquisition. These are equally legitimate ways of establishing sovereignty, according to Hobbes, and their underlying motivation is the samenamely fearwhether of one's fellows or of a conqueror. The social covenant involves both the renunciation or transfer of right and the authorization of the sovereign power. Political legitimacy depends not on how a government came to power, but only on whether it can effectively protect those who have consented to obey it; political obligation ends when protection ceases. Establishing order in society through punishment and rewards: - Ignorance of the sovereign or the penalty where law is declared is no excuse. - All crimes deserve the name of injustice, but there is place for excuse and extenuation as they are not equally unjust. Crimes against the Commonwealth are greater than private men. - Punishment is inflicted by public authority upon transgression of law for obedience.

Reversibility of social contract: While Hobbes insists that we should regard our governments as having absolute authority, he reserves to subjects the liberty of disobeying some of their government's commands. He argues that subjects retain a right of self-defense against the sovereign power, giving them the right to disobey or resist when their lives are in danger. He also gives them seemingly broad resistance rights in cases in which their families or even their honor is at stake.