Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well they also produced pre-totalitarian authors, such as Thomas Hobbes and his advocacy of authoritarian states.


I think this is the most uncharitable reading and understand of Hobbes that exists. The main argument (and context) is that men is evil and can only live in "civilization" by being forced into it by an absolutely powerful state. The fact this state is a monarchy, a dictatroship or a democracy is not the issue. The fact (in which he is right) a state needs absolute power and monopoly of that power. Modern democracies are a good example, they have the absolute power and thus are more stable and peaceful that warlord controlled pseudo-countries in Africa.


From Wikipedia:

"The purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord. Therefore, the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse, who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes, and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published."

This is an explicit restriction of free speech, in line with what's happening nowadays in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)


You've confused the concept of an absolute sovereign with this which is control over the private lives of the individual and the family.


Hobbes makes plenty of comments about how the Sovereign is able to rule civil matters, such as speech, family or religion.


Yes the Sovereign adjudicates civil disputes. This is just how England has been Saxon times. There's nothing controversial about it in principal.


Please:

"In Hobbes’ view, the sovereign had a crucial role in overseeing religious matters. This included the power to appoint religious leaders, regulate religious practices, and ensure that religious teachings were in line with the laws of the state. By doing so, the sovereign could maintain control over potential sources of dissent and prevent religious conflicts from arising."

https://polsci.institute/classical-political-philosophy/reli...

Same goes with restriction of free speech by the sovereign. I understand that you could say that it's fine and so on, but is clearly a slippery slope.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: