The Other Succession Problem

According to Hobbes, the nature of the social covenant is such that “every man should say to every man I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man [i.e., the Sovereign]… on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner” (II.xvii.13). Yet the power of the Sovereign extends beyond the time the covenant was made. I was not consulted when the founding fathers drafted the constitution, but I am still bound by it. Just as the members of the commonwealth grant sovereignty to the monarch’s successors, so too do they give up the rights of their own successors. How is this justified?

Hobbes’ response is interesting. It seems that Hobbes could simply say that, once born into a commonwealth, it would be even more irrational to return to a state of war when the commonwealth is clearly more powerful than you, a mere individual. But he doesn’t.

Hobbes argues that newborns enter the social contract by consent. The mere fact that children are generated by two parents is not enough. If this were all that was needed, both parents would have absolute power over the child because both parents contribute equally to the generative act. This is a contradiction, for the sovereign will must be one will: “no man can obey two masters” (II.xx.)

The child consents to the rule of a single sovereign—through the mother, because she has the most direct control over the child in a state of nature. The father is added on only by the mother’s consent (and thus, by extension the child). This is not the same as before, because by consensually sharing power the mother and father form one sovereign will, not two.

The child consents because he has no other choice. The mother nourishes the child on condition that the child, as part of her dominion, accept the absolute sovereignty of the commonwealth. Rationality dictates that he accept her terms, because without this nourishment the child cannot live, or will likely not live very long: “Preservation of life being the end for which one man becomes subject to another, every man is supposed to promise obedience to him in whose power it is to save or destroy him” (II.xx.5). Finally, rationality also dictates that, as part of the social contract, the parents set forth these terms; otherwise the commonwealth would be too weak. In this way the sovereign and the subjects both have "an artificial eternity of life" (II.xix.14), allowing the commonwealth to continue indefinitely.