On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
amp.theguardian.com
On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#2What 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.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#3Off-topic, tangental, but related. In a fit of sheer political science nerdery I got the Sovereign from the cover of Leviathan tattooed on my shoulder. Been wanting it for years but finally got it done a couple weeks ago.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#4What 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 littl…
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
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#5What 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 littl…
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 The only time an individual has the right to oppose the Hobbesian Sovereign is on their way to the gallows. Otherwise, the…
I didn’t understand the last paragraph.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 The only time an individual has the right to oppose the Hobbesian Sovereign is on their way to the gallows. Otherwise, the…
I didn’t understand the last paragraph.
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.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#7What 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 littl…
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."
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#8If Syria has taught is anything I hope it is that Hobbes is right -- however bad you think your current government is, civil war or revolution is worse.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t understand the last paragraph.
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.
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.
Re: On Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
#10Kind of tangental, but I've started this history of civilization that was recommended to me by some anarchist friends and which frames the parts I've read in terms of that Leviathan. So far it's been interesting if not super convincing:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-agains...