Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679): The arch conservative

Hobbes was a proponent of the existing form of government in his day: absolute monarchy. That was what he knew and was comfortable with, and thus imagined to be good, because the alternative (change) he considered to be unpleasant.

He would be right if that monarch were some supernaturally disinterrested, self sacrificing, incorruptible superman, one of Thomas Jefferson’s angels. Whose mind would not be warped by the delights of absolute power: ergo who was not human. As the 2 Stans have proven, even if such an extraterrestrial were to arrive on earth and take control, this control would warp the minds of the controlled, because no person (from whatever planet) can be expected to be divinely perfect all the time and everywhere, the unfortunate tendency for people to obey orders from higher authorities, no matter how imperfect (even wrong), means that no authority is the best authority.

Even over 3 centuries after Hobbes, there are still people who wish to believe that our glorious leaders are only out to serve our interests to the best of their abilities, whereas impartial observation reveals other motives and actions on the part of the persons that find themselves compelled to impose their wills on millions of citizens. Surely, giving in to such a calling can’t be good for the soul.


An arising strand of philosophy

I’m disconcerted by/about the arising of a strand of philosophy that claims that lacking a (fictional) social contract, coercion of the population is acceptable.
Such activists presumably feel that neither the French in 1792, nor the Russians in 1917/the 1990s, had a right to overthrow their oppresive, exploitative governments.
Such people clearly lack both perspective and a functioning moral compass. The solution/refutation is so simple: all governments are capable of, is:

  1. Lying
  2. Deceiving
  3. Destroying
  4. Killing
  5. And to finance all that: Stealing.

    (Fits nicely on the digits of one hand!)

    The people are the only ones actually capable of producing.
    So: are people better off with or without a government?
    And what would be the implied order of priority Seems to me that people outrank government. So the only acceptable coercion is of politicians., by civillians. Since that’s never gonna happen, because politicians have to volunteer for the job and they only volunteer for jobs when they can have some fun in them, thesloution is staring us in the face, government is entirely unworkable/unacceptable/ even downright impossible.
    So: time for an overthrowing (of academia & of government).