BOOK REVIEW#1: LEVIATHAN by Hobbes -- Intro.3

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.

Founding Father's Library

This is the aforementioned Founding Father's Library (taken from the Online Library of Liberty website). I thought that it would be productive to post the full reading list included on the website, in a way to keep track of our progress of reading the lot. I have included the book title, author, and its publication date as good as I could determine. I have then organized the book list chronologically according to those publication dates. I will highlight the book(s) I am currently reading from the list. Each time I finish a book, I will strikethrough the title of the book on my list here and repost the updated list.  

Founding Father's Library 

(in chronological order by date of publication)

http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/founding-father-s-library

Ancient

De Legibus -- Cicero (106-43 BC)

De Officiis -- Cicero (106-43 BC)

De Oratione -- Cicero (106-43 BC)

De Republica -- Cicero (106-43 BC)

History of Rome -- Titus Livius (Livy) (59BC - AD17)

Roman Lives -- Plutarch (c. 46-125)

History of Germany -- Tacitus (c. 56-120)

The Histories -- Tacitus (c. 56-120)

1500s

1531 -- Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy (1531) -- Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

1532 -- The Prince (1532) -- Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

1600s

1605 -- The Advancement of Learning (1605) --Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

1620 -- Novum organum (1620) -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

1623 -- De argumentis scientarum (1623) -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

1625 -- Essays (1625) -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

1625 -- On the Law of War and Peace (1625) -- Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)

1627 -- The New Atlantis (1627) -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

1644 -- Institutes of the Laws of England (1628-1644) -- Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634)

**1651 -- Leviathan (1651) -- Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)**

1656 -- Oceana (1656) -- James Harrington (1611-1677)

1660 -- The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth (1660) -- John Milton (1608-1674)

1661 --Elementa Jurisprudentiae universalis (1661) -- Samuel, Baron von Pufendorf (1632-1694)

1672 -- De jure naturae et gentium (1672) -- Samuel, Baron von Pufendorf (1632-1694)

1680 -- The Antient Right of the Commons of England Asserted (1680) -- William Petyt (1636-1707) 

1689 -- The Two Treatises of Civil Government (1689) -- John Locke (1632-1704)

1690s -- A Letter on Toleration An Essay concerning Human Understanding(1690s) -- John Locke (1632-1704)

1690 --An Essay concerning Human Understanding (1690) -- John Locke (1632-1704)

1691 --Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money (1691) -- John Locke (1632-1704)

1696 -- On the Reasonableness of Christianity (1696) -- John Locke (1632-1704)

1698 -- Discourses Concerning Government (1698) -- Algernon Sidney (1622-1683)

1698 -- A Short History of Standing Armies iin England (1698) -- John Trenchard and Moyle

1700s

1709 -- Vox populi, vox dei: Judgement of Kingdooms and Nations Concerning the Rights, Privileges, and Properties of the People (1709) -- John Somers (1651-1716)

1724 -- Cato's Letters (1724) -- John Trenchard (1662-1723) & Thomas Gordon (?-1750)

1728 -- The Dunciad (1728) -- Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

1731 -- Of False Taste (1731) -- Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

1731 -- History of England (1726-31) -- Paul de Rapiin-Thoyras (1661-1725)

1732 -- Of the Uses of Riches (1732) -- Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

1733 -- The Freeholder's Political Catechism (1733) -- Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751)

1733 -- Letters on the English Nation (1733) -- Francois Arouet de Voltaire (1694-1778)

1734 -- Persian Letters (1734) -- Montesquieu (1689-1755)

1734 -- Reflections on the Causes of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (1734) -- Montesquieu (1689-1755)

1734 -- An Essay on Man (1733-34) -- Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

1735 -- A Dissertation Upon Parties (1735) -- Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751)

1740 -- A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740) -- David Hume (1711-1776)

1740 -- Observations on the Romans (1740) -- Abbe Gabriel Mably (1709-1785)

1743 -- Remarks on the history of England (1743) -- Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751)

1748 -- The Spirit of the Laws (1748) -- Montesquieu (1689-1755)

1749 -- The Idea of a Patriot King (1749) -- Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751)

1749 -- A Letter on the Spirit of Patriotism (1749) -- Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751)

1751 -- An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1751) -- David Hume (1711-1776)

1751 -- Treatise: An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) -- David Hume (1711-1776)

1751 -- Works (1751) -- Francois Arouet de Voltaire (1694-1778)

1752 -- Political Discourses (1752) -- David Hume (1711-1776)

1752 -- Letters on the Study and Use of History (1752) -- Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751)

1754 -- Discourse on the Origin of the Inequality of Men (1754) -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

1755 -- The Natural History of Religion (1755) -- David Hume (1711-1776)

1756 -- General History and State of Europe (1756) -- Francois Arouet de Voltaire (1694-1778)

1759 -- History of Scotland (1759) -- William Robertson (1721-1793)

1760 -- The Law of Nations (1759-1760) -- Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767)

1762 -- History of England(1754-1762) -- David Hume (1711-1776)

1762 -- The Social Contract (1762) -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

1762 -- Emile (1762) -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

1764 -- An Essay on Crimes and Punishments (1764) -- Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794)

1769 -- Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69) -- Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780)

1769 -- History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V (1769) -- William Robertson (1721-1793)

1770 -- Philosophical & Political History of ... the East & West Indies (1770) -- Abbe Guillaume Raynal (1713-1796)

1771 -- The Consitution of England (1771) -- Jean Louis Delolme (1740-1805)

1776 -- Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty (1776) -- Richard Price (1723-1791)

Post-American Revolution

1777 -- History of America (1777) -- William Robertson (1721-1793)

1779 -- Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) -- David Hume (1711-1776)

1784 -- Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution (1784) -- Richard Price (1723-1791)

1784 -- Observations on the Government and Laws of the U.S. (1784) -- Abbe Gabriel Mably (1709-1785)

1790--Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) -- Edmund Burke

1800s

1835--Demoncracy in America, Vol.1 (1835) -- Alexis de Tocqueville

1840--Demoncracy in America, Vol.2 (1840) -- Alexis de Tocqueville

Other Authors Named, But Without Specific Works Mentioned

William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

Coxe (Sir Edward Coke?)

Plato (c. 427-347 BC)

John Robinson (1575-1625), reverend of the Pilgrims

BOOK REVIEW#1: LEVIATHAN by Hobbes -- Intro.2

LEVIATHAN (or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil)

By Thomas Hobbes

1651

"The Introduction," continued

Back to Leviathan. Let's talk about the image of Leviathan itself. I'll list the parts, but will have comment for only a few of them. I'll list them in different groups. The first group describes the Soul and central nervous system of Leviathan. 

1.1) Artificial Soul. Today, we might call it Soul, the brain, the mind, the spirit, or something else. But whatever word you use, it seems clear that this life-source part is considered by Hobbes to be the control center of the Artificial Body. And what is the Life-Source of Hobbes' Commonwealth? What is the proverbial Soul of Leviathan according to Hobbes? It is the Sovereignty, or ruler(s) of the Commonwealth. While the exact definition of Hobbes' sovereignty has not been provided in this section, this symbol alone seems to suggest to me that the system of government embodied in Hobbes' Leviathan is some breed of totalitarian government, likely absolute monarchy, but we will have to wait and see. This is only the first paragraph of the book (not including the dedication) after all.

1.2) Business (as in the central goal or purpose) of the Commonwealth is the "Peoples Safety." This was briefly discussed above. But 'safety against what?' is still unclear at this point.

1.3) Reason or Will  are the actual commands of motion in the Limbs stemming from the Soul (that is to say, the Sovereign), and are symbols of Equity (the notion of fairness) and Laws together. 

1.4) Reward and Punishment (i.e., civil law) are represented by the Nerves, the parts that relay the commands from the Soul/Sovereign to the Limbs (magistrates). It is noteworthy to point out Hobbes does not use the word 'justice' to represent the Nerves. Is not the execution of the law what we would call 'Justice'? I could not wait to search for Hobbes' definition of 'justice,' that would prompt him to use a different word in this case. I found what I think is a clue in Chapter XIII. While I will address this quote more completely in a later post, I believe the select quote will be sufficient to answer my question. I reads as follows: 

To this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice. Force, and Fraud, are in warre the two Cardinall vertues. Justice, and Injustice are none of the Faculties neither of the Body, nor Mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his Senses, and Passions. They are Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude. [...] (Chapter XIII, In Such A Warr, Nothing Is Unjust)

Notice to Hobbes juxtaposes the words 'Right' and 'Wrong' with 'Justice' and 'Injustice,' implying the connection, that Justice for Hobbes is more consistent with absolute Justice or absolute Good or absolute Correct or Moral (purposefully spelled with a capital 'M'). Could we say that Justice for Hobbes would be more like God's will? I'm not sure, since Hobbes also says that Justice and Injustice do not reside in Man's faculties individually, but only in Society. Suffices to say that Man's laws are not always in tandem with God's laws, so then maybe, for Hobbes, Justice is not the correct word to describe the will of the mortal man occupying the position of Sovereign. 

The next group of parts comprises the Body of Leviathan, or the people who carry out the Will of the Sovereign. Today, I’m pretty sure we would refer to the people comprising the Body of Leviathan as the governmental bureaucracy. 

2.1) Counsellors are the Memory.

2.2) Magistrates (administrators and also administrators of justice) represent what was hitherto called Limbs, that is to say the structure of the body, namely the skeleton and Joints, but also the range of motion of the structure. The Limbs carry out the commands/impulses from the Sovereign. 

The last group of analogous parts comprising Leviathan is a group of one, representing all subjects within the Commonwealth. Please note that this is the first and only part of the analogy that include the main body of the people (which I will call the Body Politic), which I imagine would include you or I in this image (unless you are a Magistrate or Counselor). I have enough commentary on this one that I think I shall make it a separate post. 

BOOK REVIEW#2: WEALTH OF NATIONS by Smith -- My Intro

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the WEALTH OF NATIONS

By Adam Smith

1776


Introduction

I believe that economic freedom is linked to political freedom, and that in order to have a free society, the citizens must enjoy both. The idea of political freedom, which includes the freedom of thought (which therefore includes the freedoms of speech and press) and the right of consent (the right to vote), is much more familiar to our American public, albeit I would still argue that the foundational principles for the political freedom outlined in the Declaration of Independence and then provided in the Constitution are not well understood by the general public. That being said, it seems to me that economic freedom is nevertheless still the less familiar and the less understood of the two freedoms mentioned among the general American public, on either side of the political aisle. 

As you watch or listen to political debate regarding economic policy, you may notice as I have that pretty much every discussion is a variation on a given theme, a restatement of this single core question: should we let "the market" work out the issue or should we have government intervene with the market via some sort of regulation? Notice that the reality of 'the market' is not what's being debated, only whether government regulations on certain components within the market or within a given market should or should not be implemented. In other words, should we alter the market or not? I have never heard anyone suggest that the nature of the discussion is anything otherwise.


It seems to me also that at the core of the argument is the concession by all parties that 'the market' seems to be the natural default economic system, which would by extension make capitalism the natural or default economic system, and any economic question in the political sphere seems therefore to explore to what degree of effective departure from the market should we pursue -- on the one extreme, no degree of departure, meaning pure capitalism and no regulation by government, 'let the market work naturally'; and on the other extreme, complete departure, meaning no capitalism and complete regulation, often referred to as central planning. 

When we talk about economic freedom, it is important to understand that 'the market' is not an entity or a tangible object, but it is a word that represents people and their economic interactions (namely, their trading patterns). So, it is important to understand that regulation on 'the market' is actually regulation on the people that 'the market' represents in a given discussion, and freedom in 'the market' means freedom for the people that 'the market' represents. Therefore, for better or worse, more pure capitalism means more economic freedom for the participants, and more regulation means less economic freedom for the participants. 

It seems to me therefore that it could then be said that a working knowledge of 'the market,' how it works (including how it responds to regulations), and how such changes affect economic freedom, would be desirable for all parties, from the voter to the politician, regardless of political affiliation. Proponents of capitalism should know what they actually defend, opponents of capitalism should know what they actually oppose, and new-comers to the debate should learn about it so they can come to their own conclusion. 

While it seems to me the logic of such working knowledge is difficult to refute, it also seems to me that there is nevertheless a lack of general understanding (not to mention comprehensive understanding) among the American people about what the market actually is and how it works. And it puts them and the discussion (and by extension, I would argue, the country and our notion of freedom) at a devastating disadvantage, especially those who claim to be proponents of capitalism, economic freedom, and freedom in general. If one does not know what the market is or how it typically behaves, not to mention how it fosters freedom (both general and economic), how is one to know, or care for that matter, whether a particular government economic measure is a move toward or further away from a market system? Without that baseline, how can progression or regression of economic freedom be measured? I would propose therefore that the ignorance (not just the lack of effective communication of the proponents of capitalism) of the populous presents the greatest obstacle for the proponents of capitalism, and the greatest advantage to the opponents of capitalism. 

For these reasons, I decided to Review Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. My goal is to summarize and explain the principles therein contained chapter by chapter, so that we all can be better acquainted with these principles. I do not pretend to be an expert on Adam Smith or capitalism or economics. But I am an avid learner, and I suspect that you and I will be more expert on the subjects by the time we finish the book than many participating in the current economic debate. 

You may have noted that the book is more than 200 years old, and may think that it must surely be considered outdated. That it is old I do not dispute, but whether it is outdated remains to be seen. True principles don't become outdated, we just forget then rediscover them. I plan on review other works on economics in the future, but since Adam Smith is considered the "father of economics" (not just 'modern economics,' but 'economics' as a whole), I thought that this would be a good place to start. I hope that you enjoy this Review.  

BOOK REVIEW#1: LEVIATHAN by Hobbes -- Intro.1

LEVIATHAN (or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil)

By Thomas Hobbes

1651

As previously noted, I have been listening to Hobbes' Leviathan on audiobook via the Hoopla app, and following the text for reference via gutenberg.org (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#link2HCH0010).  

I selected to listen to the audiobook early on, and soon found that listening to these older texts for the first time is WAY easier than trying to read the text for the first time. Any of my readers who have already attempted to read books from this era will already know, but 17th-century English spelling is not always the same as the 20th-century English spelling, even if the pronunciation might be basically the same. On top of that, sentences in this book can be ridiculously long, with TONS of inserted clauses and commentary meshed into the same thought. So, with the audiobook, since you don't have to spend as much brain power sorting out the mechanics of the language because it visually looks different, you are able to sort the content much faster on the first go around, then refer to the text for further study. Hearing it first seems to make it easier to read later. I had already discovered a similar preference with Shakespeare's plays, which come from around the same era, but I had not yet generalized the notion to other literature from that day because I don't recall ever attempting to read other authors from that time, until now. 

"The Introduction"

In the first paragraph of "The Introduction," Hobbes defines the title of his book:

Nature (the art whereby God hath made and governes the world) is by the art of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an Artificial Animal. For seeing life is but a motion of Limbs, the begining whereof is in some principall part within; why may we not say, that all Automata (Engines that move themselves by springs and wheeles as doth a watch) have an artificiall life? For what is the Heart, but a Spring; and the Nerves, but so many Strings; and the Joynts, but so many Wheeles, giving motion to the whole Body, such as was intended by the Artificer? Art goes yet further, imitating that Rationall and most excellent worke of Nature, Man. For by Art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMON-WEALTH, or STATE, (in latine CIVITAS) which is but an Artificiall Man; though of greater stature and strength than the Naturall, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which, the Soveraignty is an Artificiall Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; The Magistrates, and other Officers of Judicature and Execution, artificiall Joynts; Reward and Punishment (by which fastned to the seat of the Soveraignty, every joynt and member is moved to performe his duty) are the Nerves, that do the same in the Body Naturall; The Wealth and Riches of all the particular members, are the Strength; Salus Populi (the Peoples Safety) its Businesse; Counsellors, by whom all things needfull for it to know, are suggested unto it, are the Memory; Equity and Lawes, an artificiall Reason and Will; Concord, Health; Sedition, Sicknesse; and Civill War, Death. Lastly, the Pacts and Covenants, by which the parts of this Body Politique were at first made, set together, and united, resemble that Fiat, or the Let Us Make Man, pronounced by God in the Creation.

"Leviathan" is Hobbes' chosen metaphor for the central government of his society/Common-wealth/State for which he will advocate in his book. At first glance, I thought the choice of symbol to be bad marketing. I always understood a leviathan to be a giant monster of some kind, usually a sea-monster, which is not the mascot I would typically expect to attract people to your ideas of government.

However, merriam-webster.com offers a lesser-used but more broad definition of 'leviathan': 'something that is very large and powerful,' not necessarily a monster. Thinking along those lines, I also remember learning in junior high or high school that Hobbes thought men were inherently evil and government was necessary to keep people from basically killing each other off. If this is true, then maybe a leviathan is a better mascot than originally anticipated, being "of greater stature and strength" than any of its subjects (that is to say any individual that composes it). With this power, Hobbes assigns Leviathan's primary purposes as protection and defense of its subjects, with the confidence that Leviathan is powerful enough to deliver on those purposes. But protection and defense against what? And at what cost? Hobbes has not actually yet identified Fellow Man as the enemy in this analogy, nor has he discussed whether there are any perceived concessions by the subjects in order to grant Leviathan such power. So, at this point, the answers to these questions are ambiguous. We'll have to see if and how he answers it later. 

Let's talk about Leviathan's origins in this analogy. To begin, Hobbes defines "life" as 'but a motion of Limbs,' meaning that being able to make yourself move means you possess life. The Limbs referred to are part of an otherwise inanimate Body, but to which a life-source is added. From this life-force originates the commands resulting in the movement of the previously inanimate Limbs – it is the source of Will and Reason, which the Body then carries out. In Nature, the inanimate Bodies are those of Man and Animals (Hobbes does not mention plants or other living things [such as microscopic organisms] here, so I’m not sure whether he thought that his definition of life extended to plants, and I'm not sure how well microscopic organisms were understood at that time), God being the Great Artificer of the inanimate body and the provider of its life-source, which is the Soul. Life imbued by God is referred to by Hobbes as Natural Life. 

Hobbes then discusses how Man is an Imitator of God's Art of creating an inanimate body then imbuing it with Life. Man's inventions that propel themselves (engines or Automata, as Hobbes calls them -- for example, a mechanical watch) could by Hobbes' definition be considered as having Life. However, since Man is the Artificer, not God directly, then the Life bestowed to the watch is considered Artificial Life, and can therefore be considered an Artificial Animal. Considering machines as alive is a notion that we are somewhat familiar with today: when a battery runs out, the machines ‘dies’; science fiction stories have frequently explored the notion of sentient machines (HAL-9000 of 2001: A Space Odyssey; Skynet of The Terminator; Issac Asimov’s I, Robot; Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?; etc).

Hobbes proclaims that Man’s gift of logic and invention can also imitate God’s greatest Natural creation, which is Man himself. This is done by Man’s organizing Himself into a society/Common-wealth/State. According to Hobbes, Leviathan is this Artificial Man, making the Commonwealth the pinnacle of Man's imitation of God's Art. 

Interjection regarding religion, politics, and the Founding of the United States

At this point, I wish to discuss a certain point particularly illustrative in this first paragraph of The Introduction, and important to most if not all our future discussions on this blog, or at least the book REVIEWs for the foreseeable future. You see, in these older texts on government and philosophy, it was common to talk about government and religion (especially Judeo-Christian doctrine and values) concurrently, in the context of one another: Drawing parallels or lessons from Scripture was not alien to the political discussion of earlier times. 

In The Introduction, as previously stated, the creation of Leviathan is compared to the creation of Man in the Old Testament. Hobbes also compares the moment of decision to enter into this social contract ("Let us form Leviathan"), with the moment during the Genesis account of Creation where God pronounces the object of the Sixth Day, “Let us make man.” (As a side note, I find it interesting that Hobbes does not use for his Introduction the complete quote from this verse in Genesis: “Let us make man in our image" (KJV, Genesis 1:27, italics added), but that’s a discussion for another day.) 

In addition, this idea of using a single character to symbolize a body of people is common in the Bible. In the Old Testament, the prophet Daniel saw in vision Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a great image/idol with a head of fine gold (symbolizing Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom of Babylon), breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of part-iron/part-clay (all symbolizing various kingdoms of the earth that would follow the fall of Babylon) that was smashed to pieces by the stone cut out without hands. The covenant people was compared by John the Baptist to a Bride (with the Christ as the Bridegroom). Jesus Christ used various parables to illustrate different aspects of the kingdom of God, including one involving ten virgins. Paul the Apostle compared the Church to the Body of Christ. 

I wonder then if Hobbes' use of the image of Leviathan, an Artificial Man, as a symbol of a kingdom was actually imitating this scriptural literary device, which likely would have been already familiar to his Christian English audience. An interesting strategy, if true, although whether I agree with the analogy he offers remains to be seen. 

But back to my point: While I may not go so far as to say that our political discussion is not completely bereft of the inclusion of Judeo-Christian principles today, it is however no mystery that such discussion of Western religion (namely Christianity and Judaism) is discouraged in the United States (and I daresay in the Western political arena as a whole) and outlawed many times, both within government and in the public square, the which banning is often under the banner of the oft-quoted-out-of-context words of Jefferson, "a wall of separation between Church and State") (https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html). 

This censuring of religious incorporation is important because many of the Founding principles teeter on the acceptance of a higher power in the ordering of the universe and the considering of Man as individuals having intrinsic value both by His Nature, and as a member of Nature. One may not agree with the philosophy of natural rights, or with Christianity or Judaism, but it nevertheless the philosophy to which the Founding Fathers looked while adopting the notion that Man possessed certain inalienable rights, namely Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (including Property), including that it was morally wrong to violate these rights, and that their protection was the sole purpose of government. Attempting to separate the idea of Higher Power and moral authority from the public's political education and discourse diminishes the importance of the natural law paradigm, thereby blurring the importance of individual rights in politics. 

I repeat, my reader may not necessarily believe in, adhere to, or even agree with Judeo-Christian religions/values/philosophy (which is your right, I have nothing against that) but I think that it is important to acknowledge that it was this philosophy of natural law upon which this Nation was founded, and which in fact allows you and me to be free to have differing opinions (and religions) without threat of violence, either from government or from neighbors, in the first place. It therefore appears to me difficult to fully understand the principles behind the Founding without discussions regarding applicable religious (particularly Judeo-Christian) principles are held as well. Again, this seems complete antithesis to the current "wall of separation between Church and State" purported by so many. And yet, I think that we will see that religious or moral understanding, coupled with Man's desire to pursue what he perceives as moral and good, will contribute greatly to our discussions on the importance of freedom, the Constitution, and free market capitalism. I dare theorize again that the American Founding cannot be fully understood without discussing Judeo-Christian theology. Therefore, I think it not remiss to incorporate religious principles into the political discussion both liberally and appropriately.