In the Leviathan, chapters 17-19, Hobbes illustrates that the changes in the individual’s rights are on the basis of trust to the sovereign. For Hobbes, once consented, the individual gives up his natural rights except for his right to preservation. Unlike Locke, the government, or sovereign may not be accused of breaking the covenant – he is absolute and incapable of injustice. In this structure, the individual loses his right to influence controversies; it now depends on the sovereign’s decision making. What is interesting is that even individuals who did not vote for this institution must still submit to the sovereign’s rule. This forceful submission of the individual seems to infringe on an individual’s rights, but by entering the covenant these rights do not exist and thus cannot be infringed upon.
The relationship of the sovereign to the subject is one of unquestioning power. By consenting to the contract of the Leviathan, the individual is thereafter, by virtue of being the author of the Leviathan, author of all of the Leviathan’s actions and should be happy with the outcome. While it could undoubtedly be viewed negatively as easily corruptible, what must be taken into account is the trust which in the ruler. Hobbes’ idea of government is not a tyranny; the populace is entering into a covenant in order to protect themselves – it is their choice. Because the ruler must be trusted, the individual is no longer allowed to judge the actions of the sovereign. Actions which would be viewed as destructive or unjust are not as bad as being in the state of nature. In order to enter into this covenant, everyone must mutually disarm themselves. In doing so conflict is reduced, and when it does arise, it must be trusted that the ruler is able to make the right decision – that is why he is elected to be sovereign in the first place.
Pingback: Alexander Ong
Pingback: Olivia Long