Though Hobbes' approach to these grand problems of human nature and law is very direct and rational, it seems to me that he makes an absurd fundamental statement in the Leviathan. In Chapter 18, he claims that in an Instituted Common Wealth, all men must agree to support the actions of the Common Wealth so that they might live peaceably with one another. Fair enough. He mentions the third consequence of this covenant is that even a man who opposes the Instituted Sovereign must consent to the Sovereign's power, regardless of the fact that he may have not voted or supported the institution in its formation. If the dissenter refuses to submit, Hobbes' answer is that he will be left in a state of war where any man can kill him/abuse him with impunity. This is where I have a problem.
Essentially, this dissenter, who may oppose the Sovereign on very rational grounds, is forced into a covenant with the Sovereign. (To get around this problem, Hobbes, in Chapter 20, allows that Common Wealths created out of fear/force are as equally valid as voluntary covenants.) Let us suppose that in this prior 'state of war' this dissenting man is non-aggressive and has the resources and ability to provide himself with better protection than the Sovereign is capable of providing him. Perhaps this man has accumulated material wealth and loyal friends and lives in a fairly remote area, essentially removing any threat of death. Let us say this man is living in a way where he no longer has to concern himself with the dangers of the 'state of war'.
However, this new Common Wealth is instituted about his home. When he refuses to surrender his will to the Sovereign on the grounds that he was perfectly capable of providing his own security, this peaceful dissenter is made an 'enemy of the state', rendering the safety and security he was able to provide to himself now inadequate against the Leviathan that intends to rob him of it. The Leviathan can have this peaceful man arrested or he can put a price on his head simply because he declines the protection of the Sovereign and does not wish to abandon his home to escape the Sovereign's borders.
I imagine Hobbes has some answer to this query of mine. He would probably argue that it's impossible for a man outside a Common Wealth to transcend this 'state of war'. However, I am not convinced that it is impossible to amass means of personal protection outside of the Common Wealth. Thoughts?
I think Hobbes would argue that by consenting to live in the commonwealth at all you are subject to it whether you recognize its sovereignty on your person or not. I think he would say that the only way to escape the authority and autonomous rule of the commonwealth would be to leave it entirely. However, upon leaving and traveling elsewhere you'd only find yourself, inevitably, in another.
ReplyDelete