|
Ernie Muppari posted:I 'unno dude, the line between advocating for Randian Supermen to be given full control over society because the drat dirty takers are inherently inferior, and claiming that humanity needs monarchs because plebes are just too stupid and selfish, is pretty fuzzy. Coming to the defense of Hobbes here, that is not quite a fair representation of the man. Hobbes' thesis is that, without government, all people, not some vaguely-defined "plebs," live in a state of isolation, poverty, war, and hopelessness. This is not because individuals are stupid--quite the opposite, Hobbes was an firm believer in man's inherent reason--but because Hobbes believed that this brutal competition was inherently human. He cited 'empirical' evidence, such as how people act during civil wars and in regions without state control. The only way to end this is the formation of a state, wherein all rights are forfeited to the Sovereign. Hobbes believed that the ideal Sovereign was a monarch, because that provided the most stability, but also said that the Sovereign could be a governing body such as a Senate. Furthermore, the character of the Sovereign, if he (Hobbes assumes male) is a monarch, is immaterial. He is not assumed to be smarter or naturally better than any of his subjects. What matters is that he exists and he is the supreme law of the land. By doing so, he prevents the chaos of the state of nature. For Hobbes, even most incompetent or tyrannical Sovereign (hi there Charles I) is better than the state of nature.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:26 |
|