Thomas Hobbes: âDuring the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.â
Discussion
"The life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Hobbesâ Leviathan
What is the point of these quotes?
Heâs one person that has put some thoughts into your question.
Not sure the relevance but weâve never seen more senseless war than under the current political system
I think thatâs his point, thereâs always going to be war. The question is how and where.
Are you saying that we canât live in peace so we might as well give permission to psychopaths to enslave us? Iâm not sure what conclusion youâre leading me toward.
I am not leading you to a conclusion, I am questioning whatâs coming into fill the vacuum?
I am hearing there will be peace?
No there wonât be. But the solution is not violent government.
I am still not hearing what the solution that replaces the existing âconstitutionâ.
What the solution is*
The constitution is a piece of paper with ink on it and it isnât even doing what it claims to do. Because itâs a piece of paper and canât do anything. This is equivalent to saying we need to replace an idol with something else. It wonât fix anything but you insist that it needs to be replaced with something.
The piece of paper canât do anything, but the army thatâs pledged allegiance to it can.
Then the piece of paper is irrelevant. The people choose to act this way.
Yes, itâs a collaboration.
A âtribeâ of its own.
Is this not sufficient? Couldnât people work together to fix their own problems then? Because if you accept the premise that the constitution is just a piece of paper with no real power, then all we really have left is a group of individuals acting.
Instead of this strange example you gave where a government is overthrown, letâs try another scenario. What would happen in this same âcountryâ if all the people stopped paying taxes?
If you donât like the terms âgovernmentâ and âcountryâ, then substitute all of it for âtribeâ. I am good with that.
That's the view from behind the rosy glasses, indeed. Not reality.
Constitutions are trampled by emergency powers, and the US has been in a constant state of emergency for over half a century. You could say the constitution is "temporarily"ÂŽ suspended, until the emergency endsâ˘. Not a new game, same happens to every babylonian state.
Voting for change is a meaningless practice as the unfavorable result to the status quo gets discarded or a re-do forced. Voting to legitimize a corrupt oligarchy however is not meaningless - that's the reason elections get massive publicity. Without your vote, which wont lead to positive change for you, they would have to resort to more obvious authoritarian methods. That's bad for bizz and grifting so voting is heavily encouraged.
The alternative to a bad practice is not doing it. The alternative to stealing and killing is not doing it. So the alternative to voting for masters is not to vote. If you insist voting is the only meaningful activity to your community I encourage you to think if you are in a good place and if not - move (vote with your feet).
When you remove a parasite from your body, what do you replace it with?
This sounds like an over simplification, but I think we understand each other.
Suppose we take any nation state leader, suppose they are a parasite. We forcefully remove them, we leave, are we saying no one will step in to take their place? If we stay and enforce this new peace, are we not the parasite?
Hobbes call this entity the âLeviathanâ.
This new peace youâre suggesting we enforce is an oxymoron. Using theft and violence to enforce âpeaceâ is not peace at all.
Removing the leader doesnât make all the other government institutions disappear.
So youâre suggesting the other option, overthrow the existing parasite and leave. See if another parasite doesnât take its place.
I didnât suggest anything. You made up this weird scenario where a government overthrows another government and just leaves. As if a government would make a selfless act like that lol
Whether another parasite takes its place doesnât make it right. The question is, do you think people are capable of ruling themselves and fixing their own problems without having a slave master?
Do I think some people are capable of ruling themselves? Of course.
Do I think there will psychopaths that want to rule them? Also of course.
Will there be war? Of course.
Do you believe that violence is necessary for human civilization?
Yes
Do you believe that only a select number of people should have the right to use violence in anyway they see fit?
I only speak for myself and the right to use violence.
I think defense and violence are different things. Do you mean right to defend yourself?
Defense is a sub component of violence.
I donât see it that way. A fence isnât used violently for example.
I can zap you with an electric fence âĄď¸
You wouldnât really be zapping me as much as Iâd be zapping myself if I touch the fence
If youâre going to talk âstate of natureâ you cannot ignore Locke and Rousseau among Hobbes
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau represent the three distinct possibilities that the State of Nature could have resulted in theoretically
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau were highly influential in shaping the ideas behind modern constitutional government, particularly the U.S. Constitution.
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) argued for a strong central authority to prevent chaos, influencing ideas about the necessity of government.
John Locke (Two Treatises of Government) introduced the concept of natural rightsâlife, liberty, and propertyâwhich became foundational to democratic governance.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract) emphasized the general will and popular sovereignty, reinforcing the idea that government should reflect the collective will of the people.
Lockeâs ideas were particularly influential in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, while Rousseauâs emphasis on direct democracy shaped later democratic movements.
Thomas Hobbes was the propagandist of a king.
A king who deeply resented the feudal and Christian restraints on his power.
Hobbes was a revolutionary, but not the kind I like.