Leviathan (1651)
gutenberg.org
gutenberg.org
The great debate of political philosophy coming out of the 17th century was between Hobbes (anarchy is horrible, humans aren’t nice to each other, best to give up your freedoms to a strong sovereign/state for protection) and Locke (liberty is best, people are reasonable, limit government). I will say that like most of us I probably side more with Locke but as a pessimist about human nature I find Hobbes’s argument fascinating too.
Using "&" literally in 2026 smells of wonder, well done, thanks!
Do you do it sometimes in regular English words too or just in &c? Please give more examples (if you have any).
This will be a great day, starting of like this: a written play with words; i like it!
Is there something wrong with "&" in 2026?
Some kind of meta meaning?
I like it a lot, and it makes me happy to see someone using the ligature of "e t"[0] ("&") not only as "and" but also as it's original "et" in the abbreviation "etc".
To me it reads like someone playing with words in a fun way, which is not that common in my parts of the internet
I was trying to express appreciation.
---
Economist editorial attempts to be open on both sides.
1. Open regulations for businnesses
2. Open regulations for people
3. ?????
4. Profit!
* He thinks everyone should be compelled to worship in the state-sanctioned religion
* Censorship of publications, teaching, etc. is necessary because ideas can be dangerous.
* Separation of powers (e.g. between executive, legislature, judiciary) is bad; he wants a single unitary sovereign with unlimited power.
* The sovereign is above the law
* Resisting a tyrannical sovereign is bad
...and that's why I'd pick Locke over Hobbes. And I think most of us would too.
An easy example is that the scariest people to run in to in a dark ally are the drugged up types; because the problem is they don't have the ability to make decisions while considering the pros- and cons- over a couple of months and their normal behaviour isn't predictive of what they are about to do.
Someone who is truly horrible and comfortable with the idea of barbarism is actually pretty easy to get along with if they're happy to work with long term goals and are predictable in their deployment of violence. Their social place is probably in the military or police force. Or dentistry if they want more consensual torment.
One can argue they can’t help it. But another strategy is to mimic that to gain an upper hand. Let’s imagine someone doesn’t want folks going down their street, they could pretend to act randomly and crazy. Even seasoned barbarians would stay away from that alley, not to even mention dentists ;-)
Private security is a different thing, as the power given is just wages in exchange for a good service, so individuals seeking power wouldn't want to "just have a job" at those.
We are only three missed meals away from the marauders coming for your dog.
Government bad is such an insufferable American take and I scream every time I hear it.
Can you recommend a handful of similar “historical” works that you’d consider a must-read (or simply just darn interesting).
Thanks!
In any case, if you're looking for an approachable yet good book, I recommend reading Edward Feser's "Locke"[0]. The focus is obviously on Locke, but you can't really appreciate Locke without also getting into some Hobbes, which the books does.
I would say Hobbes in particular is a complex and difficult and frankly eccentric thinker; don’t make the mistake of believing you understand him; he is weird. If you really want to grok the guy in the context of his culture and historical moment, you should just read Quentin Skinner. That’s hardcore intellectual history though; for the basics I’d just go for the clear and brief and informative Oxford Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction.
Cicero and Plato.
Some of it doesn't translate super well into modern times. For example, Locke barely touches upon judiciary. The modern notion of separation of powers came (I believe) from Montesquieu.
I will say that Hobbes gives a far more comprehensive argument than Locke does. And some of Locke's details, including his anthropology of the origin of commonwealths, is demonstrably false.
Either way, glad to see Leviathan here!
But some works transcend the specific details of their historical origins and authorship and contain ideas that echo down the centuries. Locke’s ideas were instrumental in founding the United States and feed into much of modern liberalism. And I can read Hobbes here today in the 21st century and still find the pessimistic core of his book powerful and relevant, even while ignoring much of the book because it’s full of the parochial concerns of 17th century England. That was really what I was getting at: not “this is the exact meaning of these works in the 17th century”, but “here is the tension of ideas these books bequeathed to us.”
In Europe the individual has almost no legal reason to use force, and force by individuals is considered illegitimate. The "Sovereign" has all the coercive power in European states. In the US, however, a certain amount of legitimate force explicitly remains with the individual i.e. the 2nd amendment. (I am not making a value judgement here).
Of course, Europe has government with the consent of the governed, so is Lockean in that sense. But the balance of force between the "Sovereign" and the people in Europe is all Hobbes. You only notice it when you move to the US and compare it to Europe.
Europe had centuries of religious and civil war. It's not surprising Hobbes won out.
- the OP has not put even 2 lines explaining what, where, why, how, when etc
- Anyone mind explaining what this book is about?
The author believes that mankind would naturally live in a brutal state of conflict (homo homini lupus est, men are wolves to each other).
But mankind can give up their self interest and give their authority to a government/sovereign (the titular leviathan, a giant monster made of multiple people) that can rule with absolute power and guarantee an environment in which we are all better.
I cannot for the life of me imagine how this ended up on the HN front page, but it's cool.
But then again you're riffraff how could you imagine that :)
No Spoilers.
Hobbes was an intellectual on the right, which is a rather uncommon subject here. He was rather well versed in the science and scholastic methods of his time, and took pains to try and think his views through and make good arguments. This is more than you could say about, say, Rand or Mises, thinkers under the same umbrella who loathed intellectuals.
Now the right is plaguing us with crypto- and outright fascists who don't actually know anything, don't want to know anything, and especially don't want us to know anything. E.g. this recent interview with Marc Andreessen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBVe3M2g_SA&t=56s , who, with unbridled confidence, makes the claim that original sin was invented by Freud in the 1920s and that no "great men" of history wasted time on introspection and self reflection.
I might be an enemy of the right, but Hobbes I can respect and enjoy reading.
But he does the grifter trick of making coy observations like that 1920s bs. And he had so much time and wealth to improve those insights!
Or, he knows but this narrative makes him feel better about his behavior.
I have a similar view of Musk, Thiel and Karp, and some others I can't be bothered to remind myself of. Perhaps the Mandelsons belong to this crowd, but I suspect the Kochs have a bit more of an intellectual slant.
It's known to take a lot of discipline to keep your mind sharp and study when your power grows and other people make your life convenient and shielded from the misery of the masses. Marcus Aurelius makes this a core issue of his Meditations, the strife needed to make true and confident measurements of oneself and not get lost in superstition. Perhaps it is an impossible ideal but the ambition is at least interesting, in contrast to whatever Andreessen and his ilk are doing to themselves.
Thanks for bringing up Meditations -- it was gifted to me three years ago. Although I roughly knew Stoicism, it was my first time reading it. It helped reaffirm my focus on OSS as a channel for personal improvement and contribution to society. With so much world chaos, probably a good time re-read it.
It's a document that details an interesting person, who takes both ethics and himself very seriously, much more seriously than is common in the contemporary occident.
I really hope you are European. What you said is true of (most) European Conservatives. If you are an American, that is the most incorrect thing I have read all week. American Conservatives are the exact opposite of what you describe.
The core of the American right wing is to reject the idea in your quote in all ways. The individual is the highest ideal in libertarian ideology. This is why the US Republicans never, ever align themselves with political parties in other countries. They have a completely different set of beliefs. And for some weird reason Europeans completely ignore this and will even react violently when it is explained to them. Its just weird...
To the extent US politics is libertarian it is also very selectively so, it does not extend to all people and discards individualism as a universal ethos, either explicitly or by blaming its victims.
Chapter 5: Never Seek To Tell Thy Love, unsongbook.com
Seems to be important, that creature.