Dear Hobbes: Why Should Self-Interested Actors Want a Dictator?

Whenever I read a philosophy text, the first question I ask myself is why I am reading this. With Leviathan, the question was more of “why the f@%k am I reading this $h!t?” Hobbes babbles, he drones, and he generally sounds grumpy. Very grumpy. Had he written Leviathan today, his children would take him to a place where someone could help take care of him. This conclusion assumes he has children in the first place, and thus a wife who loves him for who he is. Is that possible?

But let’s just assume he isn’t a senile meanie, and that humans really are the way Hobbes says they are. Is his dictatorial state the only answer to society’s problems? To this, I offer two observations. First, Hobbes’s humans are too self-interested to peacefully govern as a democracy. As Hobbes sees it, law exists only because the sovereign says it exists. In a government where actors share sovereignty, law becomes individualistic to each member, and the concept of justice less universal. “Where there is no common power,” Hobbes writes, “there is no law; where no law, no injustice (xiii, 13).

Secondly, Hobbes probably used the English Civil War as a model for humanity. Hobbes lived through this war, and wrote Leviathan from exile in Paris. While Hobbes only makes a few passing references to the war, I feel we must keep the historical perspectives in the back of our minds.

What Hobbes does not clarify is why anyone would accept the rule of the sovereign. Hobbes makes clear that the subjects must accept the sovereign’s authority, or else the state will not function well. Hobbes also makes clear that humans will seek a strong state to maintain peace, and thus avoid their fear of death. What Hobbes does not make clear is how a desire for peace overrides a drive for self-interest the subjects may have.

Suppose, for instance, that I am the sovereign of a state with a few million people. I go to war with my neighboring states, mismanage my finances, and plunge my subjects into poverty. Then what? I am still able to maintain internal piece, and my subjects accept my ability to do so. However, I am not maximizing their welfare. Even though they don’t have the right to overthrow me, wouldn’t they be better off killing me and getting someone else? I am not sure Hobbes addresses this.