Eduardo J. Hinojos

1

Eduardo J. Hinojos

July 3, 2013

POLS 5349

Dr. Charles Boehmer

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)

In the Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobbes provides us with an operational idea set concerning the relationship between government, justice, and the role of man. Below, I will examine Hobbes’ ideas concerning this relationship and demonstrate how this idea set is still operational today. Specifically, I will apply Hobbes’ idea set to the current dispute between former NSA Technical Contractor Edward Snowden and the U.S. government. To do this, I will first unpack the major facets or parts of Hobbes’ idea set in the Leviathan (1651) and move toward the application of this idea set to the above mentioned dispute. Thereafter, I will point out what works and any deficiencies in the employment of this idea set to a society that is geared more toward the celebration of individual rights rather than complete submission to an omniscient and omnipotent sovereign.

In the Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argued that in a state of nature mankind is primarily motivated by self-interest. Through their self-interest and realization that they are equal in ability and aspiration, mankind throws itself into a “perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceases only in death” (Hobbes 1651, 254-255). It follows that because man is in a restless desire of power after power, man will act competitively and cruelly against her/his fellow man in order to acquire the power s/he is after. This pursuit or competition as Hobbes (1651) called it, propels mankind “to contention, enmity, and war, because the way of the competitor to the attaining of his desire is to kill, subdue, supplant, or repel the other” (255). From the above, one can deduce that mankind is always looking to conserve and augment their power because they know that absolute security can never be attained.

Because man realizes that absolute security can never be attained, man lives in constant fear. Out of this “continual fear, and danger of violent death, [mankind can expect their lives to be no more than] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 1651, 260). If mankind can expect their lives to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, then their moral interaction with each other can be nothing more than the coercion, submission of each other, and deception. This means that in a state of nature, there is no sense of right or wrong or better yet, justice because there is no law. The only law, if you will, is coercion, submission, and deception of each other for the conservation and augmentation of power and that is no way to live.

So, how did Hobbes propose for us to live then? Hobbes claimed that “where there is no common power, there is no law” (260). For Hobbes, there needs to be a common power that determines what is right and wrong so that mankind can remove themselves from coercion, submission, deception and their unrelenting and mobilizing[1] fear of death. That man must be willing to enter into a covenant with each other to form “a common power to keep them all in awe” (Hobbes 1651, 259). One can extract three precepts or general rules as Hobbes called them for forming and maintaining a common power that keeps all in awe: 1.“that every man ought to endeavor peace as far as he has hope of obtaining it” (Hobbes 1651, 261); 2.“that a man be willing when others are so too, as far forth peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to all things” (Hobbes 1651, 261); and 3.“that men perform their covenants made” (Hobbes 1651, 266).

In the case of the first precept, one can see that through the natural want of man to preserve her/his-self, peace should be the priority. By seeking peace, man will avoid as Hobbes (1651) stated, a “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short life” (260). However, Hobbes also mentioned that when “he cannot obtain it [peace,] that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war” (261). By this, Hobbes means that if peace is not the focus, then mankind has the right to revert back to the state of nature until a common power is agreed upon once again. In the case of the second precept, Hobbes meant that whatever common power and covenant is agreed upon, man should expect to behave in a reciprocal manner to each other. That what one expects to do to others, s/he should expect the same in return. With this, Hobbes established a deep foundation for law and justice. If one does not steal from another, then the same should be reciprocated by the next person. If not the case, then one has proper claim for justice in the amount of the offense. Therefore, justice will not be arbitrary. This is the advantage of having a common power—the existence of a predictable and just society. In the case of the last precept, all will not function if covenants are not kept. Hobbes offered a warning that covenants not kept are “but empty words; and the right of all men to all things remaining, are still in the condition of war” (266).

On the entirety of this basis then, we see that Hobbes made a clear case for a commonwealth. He argued that:

“the final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and

dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon

themselves […] is the foresight of their own preservation and of a more

contented life thereby, that is to say, getting themselves out from that

miserable condition of war [because they understand that they can fall prey] to the natural passions of men , when there is no visible power to

keep them in awe and tie them down by fear of punishment to the

performance of their covenants” (276).

As seen above it is the duty of the sovereign, as designated by the parties of the covenant, to determine what is good and bad—that the sovereign is both lawgiver and judge. This is important because the morality in a state of nature where all is based on coercion, submission, and deception changes to one where there is civil law. Civil law allows for the predictability of society, justice, and most importantly, security. Civil law is far removed from anything brutish and nasty. Ultimately, the moral of Thomas Hobbes and the Leviathan (1651) is one that pushes for the creation of a covenant where there exists a sovereign lawgiver and judge whom all will obey because they fear existing in a state of nature where security is not attainable. It must also be understood, however, that Hobbes (1651) also argued that a sovereign, although stemming from the covenant, is supreme and can never breach the covenant (279). That the Leviathan will never be wrong. This in essence, is the Leviathan—a functional whole or artificial man made up of “people parts” for the “greater stature and strength [of mankind] than the natural, for whose protection and defense it was intended” (Hobbes 1651, 248). Let us now consider the current state of affairs between the former NSA Technical Contractor Edward Snowden and the U.S. Government in relation to Thomas Hobbes and the Leviathan.

Edward Snowden’s presents an interesting case for Thomas Hobbes’ idea set concerning the relationship between government, justice, and the role of man. Snowden is currently being accused of leaking classified U.S. intelligence/surveillance information through WikiLeaks which has caused international diplomatic turmoil for the U.S.. According to Cassidy (2013) of The New Yorker, Snowden has been charged by the Obama Administration with two counts violating the Espionage Act and one count of theft. Furthermore, Snowden has escaped U.S. custody and is currently seeking asylum in other countries in order to avoid prosecution. Glueck (2013) of Politico quoted Snowden who claimed the following:

“In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like

me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or

powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of

an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was

promised — and it should be.”

Overall one can see that Snowden, as far as Hobbes would be concerned, has violated his covenant with the United States. Hobbes would be in complete agreement with the Obama Administration in its actions against Snowden. Hobbes’ simulated condemnation of Snowden would follow as such: Snowden, you have violated your covenant with the United States; you are purely motivated by self-interest and acting in accord with the laws of those in a state of nature, this is wrong; you are trying to destabilize the Leviathan that is the United States; the information you possess and seek to share will be used to destabilize the United States and throw all nations into competition with one another who will attempt to kill, subdue, supplant, and/or repel each other; consequently, you are challenging the Leviathan that has been created between peace seeking nations; you seek war; return to your nation and face your sovereign; realize that the NSA and all of its activities exist for your safety; do not accuse your sovereign of not keeping its promise; although your sovereign stems from your covenant, your sovereign is not subject to it so no promise has been broken!

Although Hobbes’ idea set works well for the Obama Administration as a defense of its actions in lieu of security, it does not work well for a society who holds the idea of individual rights in high regard. Current articles concerning Snowden’s circumstance such as Cassidy’s (2013) from The New Yorker, demonstrate that the idea of individual rights is at play—at least for those who come to the aid of Snowden. Such individuals and their writings examine the nature of security further and ask the question: should security be gained at the expense of individual liberty? Hobbes requires that one restrain their individual freedoms because those freedoms are reflective of a lower morality set and mankind should strive for better. But individual rights minded people such as Drake (2013) argue that:

“the government is desperate to not deal with the actual exposures, the content of the disclosures. Because they do reveal a vast, systemic, institutionalized, industrial-scale Leviathan surveillance state that has clearly gone far beyond the original mandate to deal with terrorism—far beyond” (Cassidy 2013).

This is a valid argument. Where Hobbes makes a case for a no-breach of contract on the part of the sovereign clause, individual rights minded citizens challenge the validity of that clause and say that the sovereign should have limits. That the sovereign is nothing more than the creation of a self-interested bunch and should thus be answerable to and moldable by its creator. That the sovereign is not omniscient and omnipotent because prudence after all, is experiential. By experiential, I mean that if the Leviathan is the sole creation of a set of people who have entered a covenant, we must not assume that people know everything and that the covenant out of which the Leviathan is created, is perfect. Situations change and people’s ideas evolve. In order for the Leviathan to remain relevant, it must also evolve with those it commands—its body, its subjects, its individual parts.

In conclusion, I have outlined Thomas Hobbes’ most critical points concerning the formation of the governmental body he termed the Leviathan. It was seen that mankind enters covenants because they fear living as Hobbes (1651) claimed, a “solitary, poor, brutish, nasty, and short life” (260). Born out of this covenant, is an omniscient and omnipotent sovereign whose sole purpose is to act as lawgiver and judge. This idea set was applied to the current state of affairs between former NSA Technical Contractor Edward Snowden and the Obama Administration. Through this application, we saw that Hobbes’ idea set is still called upon by security minded national leaders in order to defend their actions. On the other hand, we saw that Hobbes’ idea set does not work well with those who are oriented more toward the protection of individual rights. As seen through the Snowden case, Hobbes’ idea set can be challenged when one argues for a directly connected sovereign who reflects a continually evolving body. If the sovereign fails to answer or make unique arguments in favor of individual rights as a form of national security, it will be defeated. This was the largest limitation in Hobbes’ paradigm. Perhaps our next author, John Locke, can consolidate what Hobbes could not, or not.

Bibliography

Bailey, Andrew. "Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)." In The Broadview Anthology of Social and Political Thought: Essential Readings: Ancient, Modern, and Contemporary Texts. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2012.

Cassidy, John. "Demonizing Edward Snowden: Which Side Are You On?" The New Yorker. June 24, 2013. Accessed July 03, 2013.

Glueck, Katie. "POLITICO."POLITICO.July 1, 13.Accessed July 03, 2013.

[1] I use the word mobilizing here to mean that mankind’s fear of death prompts man to action against each other in order to avoid death and continue seeking to conserve and augment their power.