LEVIATHAN (or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a
Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil)
By Thomas Hobbes
1651
Still discussing the
image of Leviathan outlined by Hobbes in his Introduction. As stated in the
last post: the last group of analogous parts comprising Leviathan is a group
of one, representing all subjects within the Commonwealth, which includes you
and me.
"The Introduction," continued,
again
3) Wealth and
Riches of all the particular members represent the Strength of
Leviathan. I grapple with this comparison, because I wonder why the particular
members/subjects (that is to say, the individuals) themselves are not the
Strength of Leviathan, but only their Wealth and Riches. I miss the value being
placed on the individuals, as opposed to their output -- more specifically I
missed the value being placed on me and on my family as individuals, as opposed
to our individual output. Hobbes has not specifically assigned Strength to an
analogous anatomic part, an omission which I can only assume is intentional
since Hobbes is usually so meticulous with his words. I would have assumed that
the source of Strength would have been the 'muscles' in a body, maybe compare
them to hydraulics or pistons; although I am unaware of Hobbes' contemporary
understanding of muscles and their function (or hydraulics and pistons for that
matter), though I would think that the function of muscles would have been
understood sooner than that of nerves, but I do not actually know for sure.
Perhaps then, since we
are talking about the Strength of the Artificial Man (an Automaton, remember),
maybe it is assumed that there are no muscles for comparing, like those of a
Natural Body -- Hobbes specified that the Nerves would be like 'so many
strings,' so maybe it is assumed that the Nerves not only carry commands from
the Soul, but also move the Joints, as the strings of a marionette I imagine.
The trouble here is that while Hobbes specified that the Strength was
represented by all subjects, including those magistrates
compared to the Nerves that move the Body, yet Hobbes did not include any other
subjects than the magistrates to be represented by Nerves. So it seems that the
proposed interpretation of overlapping function, that of Nerves and Strength to
make muscle-like movements of the Body, does not seem to make , according to
Hobbes' outline.
So, if not a muscle...
So, muscle-related
explanations aside, what then is to be understood by the people being "the
Strength" in this comparison? If we take it from another angle, Strength
is not a physical part of a person, at least not like a Nerve or Joint; nor
does it represent a process for a person, like Memory; nor does it give
direction or purpose to a process, such as Business (in the case of Leviathan,
security and protection). Strength is something upon which or from which the
other parts and processes mentioned draw -- it's the energy source, it's the
fuel, or, perhaps most appropriately for the example of Leviathan the Artificial
Man (a robot, as it were), it's the battery. Now, I think that this would be a
pretty despicable outlook on The People, acknowledging of course that we are
still in The Introduction, so I will reserve my judgment until the end of the
book.
One could argue however
that being the Strength actually makes the subjects one of the most important,
if not the most important, part of the Leviathan structure. On the one hand, I
agree with the idea that, without Strength in the Limbs, the body of Leviathan
would be useless, and its purpose of protection (still unclear what against)
could not be realized. At the same time, consider a couple of points:
1) To repeat, Hobbes did
not identify the subjects themselves as the Strength, just their Riches, so
only their Riches comprise the Strength of Leviathan. So, is valuing someone's
riches (or labor) the same as valuing the person whose riches they are?
In general, I would say
yes and no. On the one hand, I think of the workplace as an example, when we
want other people to recognize the work that we do and we make an important
contribution to the team, we say that we want to feel appreciated. So, in a
way, I do think that appreciating a person's work is an expression of
appreciating a person. By the same token, I do not think that appreciating
one's work can necessarily be assumed as an expression of appreciation for the
other aspects of what composes the individual. Why? Because people are not
solely defined by their occupation and/or their output. People are individuals,
as previously discussed, who think and feel, and their labor, while surely
important to consider and respect, is not what exclusively defines a person. If
I value Person A as a co-worker, but have found that I don't care for Person
A's movie recommendations, then showing appreciation for Person A's
contribution at work is not necessarily a concession that I like his/her movie
choices as well. Why? Because Person A's movie tastes probably do not often
overlap with the root of his/her work ethic.
If all that is valued is
the Wealth of the subjects, as in this analogy, of what further value to
Leviathan is the rest of what defines the individual? Again, momentarily
accepting the principle that the Riches of the People are the Strength of the
Commonwealth, why need the Sovereign be concerned with the opinions, the
thoughts, the dreams of the People, especially if they differ from those of the
Sovereign? On the contrary, uniformity and conformity promote efficiency, and
any dissension can bog down the part of the system which immediately surrounds
it. And again, if only the Riches of the People are valued, but not the People
themselves, what prevents the Sovereign in principle against taking measures to
enforcing that uniformity, even until uniformity in thought, in belief, in
action, in the name of preserving the integrity of the Commonwealth? What
stands against the People and political abuses, which is tyranny? This is a
good leeway to the next point.
2) that Man's (meaning
us, our) capacity to think and to reason are considered tremendously important,
especially by philosophers. This capacity to think and reason is one of the
things that leads each of us to be individuals, and each person is valuable in
and of his or herself. Surely, therefore, there is something to be said by
Hobbes identifying that only the Sovereign is truly expected to exercise Reason
as the Mind of the Artificial Man, with limited expectation on the Bureaucracy
depending on their job, while no apparent expectation to Reason is identified
for the ordinary subjects. The People are not expected to contribute to the
society beyond that task which they have been given, which is to support the
Sovereign and his/her bureaucracy. No direction is provided by Strength by
itself. Hobbes identifies the Soul (the Commonwealth) as the sole command
center, and the Sovereign is supposed to give direction to our Strength.
It spurs in me the
question, is this all the Body Politic (that is to say, the members of the
organized society, which would include you and me) is good for, in Hobbes'
view? Are we then just the proverbial AAA batteries for the government, in
Hobbes' view? Again, this is only The Introduction, so we will have to keep an
eye out and see how he answers that question. But we see here a potential
fundamental difference between Hobbes' perception of the individual him/herself and his/her role in the
society, and that of the Founding Fathers as outlined in the
Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]" If
the individual is valued thus with certain inalienable rights, then there must
be measures taken to ensure that those rights are not violated by our fellow
men and women, as well as by the government itself -- we will see if any such measures
are outlined by Hobbes.
Interjection: Not so simple in the US...
As a side note (and I
won't go into it or its importance much here, I just wanted to mention
it), when you expand these questions to include the concept of federalism
by including the idea of States and States' rights, like we talk about in the
United States, this picture naturally becomes more complicated since we are
talking about the interconnection between more than just two parties. Leviathan
describes a system where the Commonwealth (in Hobbes' example, the Sovereign)
directly rules over the people, meaning that the actions of the central
government directly affect the subjects under its rule. Therefore, all the
questions that I have been raising thus far have been attempting to probe
details regarding the nature of Hobbes' view of that relationship (central
government vs subjects), and, like I said, I think these questions can be asked
of any government.
Eventually when we talk
more about the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution, and talk about
federalism in more detail, we will see that the United States is different from
Hobbes' model because the Constitution retains the sovereignty of the individual
State governments which previously existed as English colonies. Therefore, the
United States describes the relationship between central government vs State
government vs the People; and it's ultimately these various competing
interests, with powers that are enumerated (that is to say, specifically
assigned powers, beyond which that part of government is not supposed to have
any power, because the governed are consenting it only specific power),
complete with checks and balances, which serve to protect the rights of the
individuals. This is a summary of what is meant by federalism, in which States'
rights are supposed to play a major role. I say supposed because the current
status of State power compared to federal power is very different from how it was
originally constructed. And we'll talk about that in the future.
Perspective
Going back to Hobbes'
image of the People's Riches as the Strength of the Commonwealth: My questions
thus far have been critical, identifying what I consider to be some serious
potential weakness in Hobbes' philosophy as it pertains to individual freedom,
acknowledging of course that we are still in The Introduction. As it has this far been presented, I
feel that Hobbes' comparison dehumanizes the individual and logically allows for the violation
of his/her natural rights at the whim of some third party in the name of some Common Good (in this case, the
support of a strong central government for protective purposes).
At the same time, since we are treating the problem of such a high emphasis on the government's capacity to gain the Riches which its people produces (which is to say that we are talking basically about taxation), and while I believe that some
manifestation of support for the federal government by the People is necessary
(that is to say, I am not against taxation as a concept -- I am not an
anarchist), I do not feel that the People exist solely for the subsistence of
the central government at the expense of his/her individuality, as the image of
Strength seems to suggest. I believe that government in general plays an
important role in encouraging and perpetuating the prosperity of a society, and
one of government's only avenues of responsible revenue is taxation. However,
while I believe that support of the government by the people it governs is
acceptable in principle, I believe that it is a different thing altogether to
effectively say that the exclusive purpose of the people, and the loftiest position in society that any subject can ever hope to aspire, is to provide for the government.
The question therefore
becomes how much should the government be able to tax its
people? At what point does taxation become a burden such that it diminishes the
identity of the People, reducing them to Strength and nothing else?
In order to answer those
questions, we must ask, what are the purposes of the government established?
and therefore how much Wealth is required to sustain it? It cannot be ignored
that the "bigger" the government (that is to say, the broader range
of purpose adopted by a government, or the wider range of responsibilities it assumes), then
the larger the proverbial government Body necessary to address the
breadth of its purposes, which will necessarily require more wealth to both
sustain the government itself as well as carry out its purposes, which
therefore requires the larger percentage of the people's wealth be game for taxation if necessary.
I'll talk about my views on this at length in future posts, especially when we talk about the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
At a glimpse, my view is
that it all goes back to Man's natural rights, one of which to the right to
private property, which is of owning the produce of his labors and of doing
with it as he sees fit, whether to consume it or to sell it or to store it or
to gift it or to destroy it -- I believe that the purposes of government should
be very narrow, limited only to the preservation and defense of the natural
rights of the individual (Narrower scope of purpose means smaller government
necessary to carry out those purposes), including the individual's right to
private property. As a general principle therefore, it would behoove the
government to refrain from taxing beyond that which is absolutely necessary. To
be more specific, I think that a government can tax beyond necessity in two
ways: 1) taxing in excess for a legitimate enumerated purpose, and 2) taxing
for purposes outside of those enumerated. With this in mind, I can ask again,
at what point does the picture shift from one of people financing the function
of government to one of people living as a piece of the government for the
sustenance of the government?
Questions Regarding Ramifications of the Analogy
of Subjects' Wealth as Strength
For now, I want to turn
our focus back to Hobbes. How does Hobbes answer these economic questions for
Leviathan? We will have to see as we read. As it stands now, it seems that no
amount of Wealth/Property is off limits from taxation by the Sovereign. I mean,
how much of the battery's power does the battery keep for itself versus goes to
the machine that it drives? If we go by this example, it seem like all of it
goes to the machine that the battery drives; which is to say, it seems that
Leviathan has the right to up to all of the Wealth and Riches of the subjects, depending on the disposition and benevolence of the Sovereign. If that is indeed the case, what about economic freedom? What about private
property (owning the output of your own labor)? What about economic liberty (doing what
you want with the output of your own labor)? How then do the people make a living, when it seems then that the money/labor that the People keep is
based on however much the State decides to let them keep?
By the same token, what
about political freedom for the subjects under Leviathan? First and foremost,
the battery does not elect what machine it powers. This image does not seem to
allow for the assumption that the People have a voice in its own governance
once the Commonwealth has been organized. What input does the battery have on the
actions of the Joints? Presumably, none; the Strength has no Direction (no opinion to speak of), but it is assumed that it will take direction (from the Soul) without opposition. In this way, I think that the People's place as Strength in Leviathan does not well accommodate human behavior. Why? Because People do not behave uniformly. People have different preferences and passions, different goals and dreams, different strengths and weaknesses, different characteristics and circumstances, different outlooks and opinions. Some people may agree with Hobbes' proposed form of government, others may not; some who agree with Hobbes may yet not agree with all of the Sovereign's laws. From the perspective of preserving natural rights, the area of interest in this case would be the preservation of the rights of those who do not agree. But the concept of Leviathan, in my view, seems to emphasize an expectation of conformity of all subjects to the will of the Sovereign, like the hand of the body follows the voluntary commands of its body's mind. In Hobbes' analogy then, what value is reserved for the dissenting voice against the preferences and dictates of the Sovereign? what avenues shall the People have for grievance? What power has the individual who disagrees with the Sovereign to make his voice heard? and how effective would that process be? Why need dissent or discussion be tolerated at all? Would it not, again, depend entirely on the temperament of the Sovereign in this model?
Interjection: Nature of Law
Let's go back for a second to the idea of the Strength has no direction by itself but it is given direction by the Soul. It is important to understand that in what form this "direction" can potentially come from the Sovereign to the People -- that form is that of law. The will of the Sovereign is the law of the Commonwealth. Why is that important?
First, some commentary on the principle of law. Law, in principle, is a good thing -- Nature is governed by natural law. Law governs the natural world in which we live and allows us some stable sense that certain consequences will follow certain actions. For example, we can expect me to fall back to the ground if I jump in place; or we can expect that, if we push hard enough onto an apple with a knife, then the apple will split, typically in line with the path of the knife. As our knowledge of natural law has improved over the centuries, our understanding of what outcomes we can expect when certain criteria are met has expanded in ways previously unimaginable, and to this day are pretty amazing. For example, if I can achieve enough speed such that the air movement over my wings is faster than the air movement under my wings, then I can expect the air to lift me by the wings and I can fly.
Laws of a society are meant to share a similar purpose as those of Nature -- they are meant to let us know the "rules of the game," as it were, regarding what kinds of consequences can be expected some certain interactions with each other. Probably the most immediately relevant example of this is a criminal code, where certain actions are outlined as unacceptable and certain punishments are assigned to the performance of certain acts. However, it is important to remember that the government set up on the value of individual liberty is not supposed to use law in order to favor the liberty of some at the expense of those of others.
The balance between the rigidity and the facility with which a government can pass and change laws is an issue to be addressed for any government. On the one hand, if a government is too rigid, change in law becomes too difficult, and any problems encountered, be they internal or external, become difficult to address and, depending on the problem, could be dangerous to the society, such as an outside threat of invasion. (We'll get into it more later, but this one of the issues plaguing the Articles of Confederation). On the other hand, if government is too fluid and change in law is too easy, either by design or by disregard for standing law, then the people's sense of stability is threatened because expectations change too often, their trust begins to erode in the reliability of society's outlined consequences to certain actions. (Again, we'll get more into it later, but this is one of the problems that plagues totalitarian and monarchical governments -- I would argue that this is also one of the problems with the advent of the many federal regulatory agencies, in which unelected officials create regulations which tend to micromanage the activities of the individual, without the consent of the governed.)
At its core, it should be noted, the question of rigidity vs facility of change in law has at its core a more fundamental question: How does the government effectively respond to 'the consent of the governed'? In both previously mentioned extremes, the consent of the government is violated. If the law is incapable of change, then it cannot respond to the consent of the governed as issues arise or opinions change. If the law is too easily changed, then law can be changed without the consent of the governed, and oftimes so quickly that the governed is not able properly address it.
The danger in a man-made society is the misapplication of law against our fellow men. For this part of my discussion, the most important feature of societal law is that it must be able to be enforced, that is to say, the associated consequences must be able to be applied in response to the triggering action, in order for the law to carry any real power, otherwise it is merely a strong suggestion. The enforcement of law is one of the primary responsibilities of government. For this reason, government is inherently an agent of force, and because of this, behind every law is the physical means to enforce it -- In the days of Hobbes, that would probably be the sword; today, it would probably be the gun; in both cases, they would be carried by some form of law enforcement guard or police. I should point out that the use of force to enforce law is actually, in principle, a desirable part of the system, as this reinforces in the public the aforementioned expectation of cause and effect within the society -- If a crime is committed, and the perpetrator is punished within the established law, and the people can have faith in the security provided by the government. The trick is the application of force by these laws not infringing on the natural rights of the subjects. God does not infringe on the individual liberties of His children, although in some cases He has executed judgment for the persistent breaking of His moral laws, which in no case has not been preceded by ample warning and call to repentance by prophets. Perhaps, if Man were more like God, then perhaps the consolidation of the powers to make and enforce laws into a single entity (be it a person or a group) wouldn't instill in me the hesitation or fear of abuse or violation of individual liberties by that body. But Man is not perfect, and we are left to consider how to prevent man's imperfection from applying law and force improperly on his fellow man. In summary, since any law from a stable government is accompanied by force, it is important to keep this in mind while considering both from whom in the society does law come, and how easily is law created and/or changed.
In Hobbes' Leviathan, the law of the Commonwealth seems assigned solely to the Sovereign (not yet explicitly determined to be a single person or a group of some kind). And what is it about the position of Sovereign that makes him/her more noble, that refines his/her character to be less subject to human imperfection, that endows him/her with increased wisdom and sense of justice, than the Subjects over which he/she rules? I would argue that the rank offers no such purifying power -- the Sovereign is as Human as the Subject. And how easily is law created and changed? It seems that the law would generally be more fluid, since law seems to
radiate solely from the discretion of the Sovereign -- although naturally, it would be more fluid if the Sovereign were a single person than a group.
Perspective, continued
Returning to economics, how important for the Sovereign would it be to ensure that his/her government is properly funded? Being equipped with the power of law and seemingly unhindered in its application except for personal reservation, what measures/laws are acceptable in the Sovereign's opinion to 'ensure' that the money is available? Are there any measures/laws that are off-limits? or, in other words, are there any actions that cannot be taken against the subjects? Based solely on the image of Leviathan provided in The Introduction, it seems to depend solely on the personality and discretion of the Sovereign. I'm not trying to imply that all Sovereigns are evil to their core. There have been a spectrum of good Sovereigns and bad Sovereigns (and in-between Sovereigns through the ages. I am simply pointing out (again) that all Sovereigns are imperfect human beings, and, as I said before, that the strategy of consolidating power and responsibility into a single Sovereign as the Soul of an Artificial Man seems to allow for the violation of natural rights when necessary, and the definition of 'necessary' was at the mercy of the opinion and whim of the Sovereign, being literally the only voice of Reason in Hobbes' proposed Leviathan.
In essence, there does not seem to be any natural or
guaranteed rights identified by Hobbes in this analogy -- for what rights are
guaranteed the Joint by the Soul. For example, what value is reserved for the
peaceful dissenting voice against the preferences of the Sovereign? what
avenues shall the People have for grievance? What power has the individual who
disagrees with the Sovereign to make his voice heard? and how effective would
that process be? Would it not depend entirely on the temperament of the
Sovereign in this model? At the same time, at what point does the Sovereign give up on trying to consider varying view points, when his/hers is the only one that counts in the end? At what point does the Sovereign begin to reward those who agree and punish those who disagree? It must also be pointed that such an approach can also be adopted by well-meaning Sovereigns with good intentions (i.e., a desire for everyone in the land to be good and moral), who will make you do what he knows is best for you, whether you like it or not. While these are not guaranteed outcomes, there are no protections against them. In my view, the concept of Leviathan seems to emphasize an expectation of conformity to the will of the Sovereign, like the hand of the body follows the voluntary commands of its body's mind. There seems inherent in the image of Leviathan an emphasis that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Is the claim therefore made that a person's experience within the greater whole is of greater value then his or her experience as an individual? that the swallowing up of individuality by the greater good is preferable to individual achievement? We are not clones, we are not tools, we are not gears or cogs. We are individuals, endowed by Nature with both the will and the power to choose for ourselves, to act for themselves and not just be acted upon. The will and the desires of the individual matter, and the system of government should allow the individual as much Liberty as possible, as long as that Liberty is not used to infringe upon the Liberty (or other natural rights) of others.
With this point in mind, it is important to point out that not all governments founded are comparable to Leviathan, unless they are comparable to the structure and philosophy proposed by Hobbes. The federal government of the United States as set up by the Constitution was not comparable to Leviathan in two distinct ways: 1) the government created was based on the notion that its sole purpose was the preservation of individuals' natural rights, identified in the Declaration of Independence as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (which we know includes the right to private property), as opposed to the exclusive emphasis of security (we still do not know from what) at all costs; also, 2) the federal government of the United States was designed to be limited in power, as opposed to all-powerful.
How common is it
today to downplay individual struggle and goals as selfish? We do not seek
uniformity, but conformity. This leads to another question: how can one be said
to enforce conformity and preserve freedom? It seems to me that both cannot be
achieved simultaneously. What is interesting today is that the pursuit of
conformity is done under the banner of diversity. An emphasis on the diversity
of race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, economic class, immigration
status, gender, are all banners brandished in the March to enforce conformity,
that is to say Conformity of thought and feelings. What is forgotten is how the
true diversity is achieved by the preservation of individual rights and
dignity, an acknowledgement that all men are created equal before the law
and before God, but not in body, physique, ability, talent, attitude,
preference, opinion, belief, creed, or merit. And an attempt to equalize these
natural differences between human beings inevitably leads to a violation of
Rights of some at the privileging of others, things which should not be violated by
government, and cannot in fact be violated if we value individual freedom, and
by extension if we intend to follow the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
