Geo, thanks for providing that quote. That's definitely the case. Men are certainly a self serving creature. The first part of that quote, I admit, is why I find it hard to understand Hobbes' view of law and culture. The English practice of common law here is derided.

Men's ignorance... makes him set culture and precedent as his guiding light in judicial proceedings. Isn't law the product of culture? Shouldn't it be? I dunno.

I do like that he says that right and wrong are constantly disputed but his answer is to put one single person in charge of saying what is right and what is wrong. That's just insane. As if a person could judge every single case. As if a person never changed their mind. As if a person lived forever. As if a person KNEW what was right and what was wrong.

Even if this were the case. If a single person did know what was right and what was wrong, culture is sooooo powerful that if his views went against it, it would override this man and probably cause his death if he were in a position of power.

Awesome post, Camacho. (The response to Dave) I'd give triple thanks if I could.

I'm going to reread it now.

I knew if I kept on posting this day would come. I want to thank my English teacher, my parents, and BT for making this possible.

Sorry everyone for not contributing. Had a sudden death of a close family member. So printed out all your comments so I could digest them all quietly. I tell you - heaven is sitting in a bar in Senegambia, drinking a cold beer, and reading the twenty pages I printed out. But - if there is anything in the newspapers about a paper shortage in Gambia - don't mention my name!

And I agree. Camacho's post was awesome. Have we got to Part Two yet?

Good post President, I have been so tied up screwing people out of money (aka working) that I have not had time to give what you said the appropriate amount of thought. I will however, get back to it in the next couple of days. Now back off to screw some more people.

Sorry to hear that heledd. I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on the book!

Dave... lol, good luck with that

I don't have much time to respond, due to the fact I seem to have little leisure time as I struggle to right my financial ship after nearly two years without work. So it may take me several post to cover everything I would like to, so bare with me if you could.

I think that when discussing Hobbes one naturally goes toward the discussion of totalitarian government and utopian philiosophy. The reason is that Hobbes theory of government that is proposed in the Leviathan is both totalitarian in nature (but it a monarchy or an oligarchy) he wants to give total power to the sovereign. Related to this he believes he can create the perfect (or near perfect in his estimation) society, utopian if you will. Its hard to think of Hobbes for me without also thinking of Thomas More (much of which Hobbes obviously disliked, one thing in Leviathan seems to address the manner of More's death as a martyr of sorts) and of coures this envaribly leads to Marx and communism (another form of utopianism).

President said " While there has been absolute ZERO examples of pure communism" , but is that true, what would pure communism look like? I think it has been practiced the only way it could have been. Here is the flaw in Marx. Marx said "From each according to his ability to each according to his need", but he never answered the most important question. Who decides ability and and who decides need? That is the downfall of communist theory and why it would never work in the way that Marx's utopian dream wanted it to, it was doomed to be practiced the way it was with some person(s) deciding ability and need and with that comes the human element of prejudices and preferences, not to mention coruption and greed.

Now for the humorus end, I had a friend once tell me that even a five year old could have told Marx that communism won't work and you would end up with lots of dead people. I looked puzzled and he said its right here where it says the abolition of all private property, don't believe me go try to take a five year olds toy away from him.

I think I may have drifted somewhat afield from Hobbes but philosphers seem to have ways of forcing us down paths of thoughts, causing us to explore how things are connected one to the other. Have a good day I am off to screw some more people for my personal advantage.

Good posting Dave

Dave, thanks for the post. I agree with you about the total submission to a sovereign and how this is Hobbes' Utopia. He sees it as a very practical and utilitarian approach to provide the very basic need of people - their safety.

The people in Hobbes' Utopia have no personal property... not even their own person.

He also makes a good point that we, in our society, have no personal property and that the state can, with the power that it wields with pen and sword, can take our property away from us.

How safe is your personal property in our society?

Hobbes does make you think. In a capitalistic society, to do well means to outcompete others. So, yes, the natural state of war is still alive and well to some extent. On the other hand it's argued that wealth is actually created and no one loses. I'm not sure I buy this.

I don't see Hobbes advocating a society where no one has the right to own private property. He does say a sovereign may decide the property rights of his or her subjects. Perhaps property rights are used by the sovereign as a carrot to motivate his subjects to stay true to the contract. If we want to maintain possession of our possessions, we need to live in a state of peace and that is ensured only through continued willingness to adhere to the social contract with the commonwealth.

"That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods; such, as excludeth the Right of the Soveraign."

This is probably the closest that Hobbes gets to admitting that people own property but it shouldn't be taken at face value in my opinion. The sovereign allows people use of his property. Everything belongs to the sovereign. If everything belongs to the sovereign... no one can have personal property - just borrowed stuff.

Even if a person has personal property regarding everyone but one person - that property isn't HIS.

There's a difference between this and everyone-share-everything but the idea that people 'own' property is false.

I usually think we're referring to land ownership when we're talking about private property. But even land ownership is not quite what it sounds like. You own certain rights to the land, but ultimately what you do with it is subject to zoning and land laws that are dictated by the government. Even so, I believe our land ownership is far more liberal than in Hobbes' time.

I've just started the next section, The Commonwealth. Sorry to be so slow.