But Thomas Hobbes is pretty important in a couple of ways. He was one of the first people to suggest that mind and matter are the same thing, for example. That argument continues to rage, but imagine coming up with the idea in the early 17th century. Secondly, and more notably, Hobbes essentially founded modern social contract theory – a tradition in which Locke and Rousseau followed, and on which we’ve built much of our modern conception of government.
So it was with some trepidation that I set out to read Leviathan, his English-language masterwork. Presumably I wouldn’t find any ironclad arguments in favor of monarchy, but I might find some troubling ones against democracy, which would be all the more troubling to find in a text that had such an impact, if indirect, on democratic theory.
It turns out that all I really needed to fear was the prose. I’ve slogged through the first quarter or so of the book (through chapter XXI, and I’m not reading more), and the overall argument is interesting and thought-provoking. But the cornerstone of Hobbes’s best-known conclusion, like the cornerstone of Cartesian theology, is weak and incidental to the whole. Here’s the key paragraph:
And to compare monarchy with the other two, we may observe: first, that whosoever beareth the person of the people, or is one of that assembly that bears it, beareth also his own natural person. And though he be careful in his politic person to procure the common interest, yet he is more, or no less, careful to procure the private good of himself, his family, kindred and friends; and for the most part, if the public interest chance to cross the private, he prefers the private: for the passions of men are commonly more potent than their reason. From whence it follows that where the public and private interest are most closely united, there is the public most advanced. Now in monarchy the private interest is the same with the public. The riches, power, and honour of a monarch arise only from the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects.
That is, whoever we pick as a leader, our good should be their good. Makes sense! In democracy, we do this by electing our leaders so that we can decide whether they’ve done well or poorly by us, and return the favor. In an absolute monarchy, the king or queen tries to advance the prosperity and success of the state, so that he or she can prosper as well.
Now, Hobbes thinks mostly in terms of war and peace (given that he published the book in the middle of the English Civil War, he can be forgiven for this). So, to him, it makes sense to put one person in charge, because if you have multiple leaders they may split into factions. As far as it goes, that’s absolutely true, and you don’t want infighting among your generals. But a monarch’s incentives are not so cleanly aligned with the state’s in times of peace. We don’t really need to look any further than, say, Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il to figure that out.
And…it’s that simple! Just like in Descartes, the noted conclusion hinges on a single, ill-supported assumption. In Descartes, it was the assumption that a perfect God would not deceive. Here, it is that “in monarchy the private interest is the same with the public.” That’s just not true, and it’s pretty obviously not true. As long as the monarch can live lavishly, with a minimal chance of rebellion and a decently well-fed and well-run military, they have no interest in the prosperity of the public. To put it lightly, absolute monarchy is not really the greatest idea ever: case closed. As for criticisms of democracy, they don't go much further than the fact that multiple people can disagree about things. I don't find this a troubling argument against democracy, but more like the central problem of philosophy itself.
I don’t mean, by the way, to slight philosophy in general by dismissing two of its greatest authors, or even Hobbes and Descartes in particular. Both people made enormous contributions in multiple fields of thought. And the bulk of Leviathan isn’t even taken up with arguments for monarchy, but arguments about good governance. As I said, Hobbes's main contribution – social contract theory – stands independently of his arguments for monarchy. Those arguments are still interesting and relevant, so I highly suggest you go read them (although by “read them,” I mean selected excerpts).
Posts
It's interesting Hobbes wants a monarch to ensure against civil war. Mises makes a parallel argument for democracy. Something like: the majority are going to get what they want anyway, so we might as well let them vote so it's bloodless (and we can continue to be productive through the change of power).
ReplyDeleteBut Mises had the benefit of a few hundred years of history Hobbes never saw. I can't think of a successful popular revolt against a king that Hobbes would have known about. It must have always been nobles v. kings, and other kings v. kings for him.
I don't feel competent to speak to 17th century European history, since my only real exposure comes via Neal Stephenson, but that second paragraph sounds about right.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point you bring up from Mises - in general, pragmatic arguments like that seem to be the ones that Hobbes overlooks, since he takes a very explicitly deductive stance. And he ends up with what's really a rational-actor economic theory. The key for him, I think, isn't monarchy necessarily but sovereignty. There has to be some identifiable, end-of-the-line enforcing power. The Mises point, to refit it for Hobbes's argument, seems to be that sovereignty naturally or inevitably resides in the public. To approach it from the other end, there will always be a bureaucracy running a state, so it's foolish to imagine a monarchy without a managing elite of some sort. And therefore the advantages of monarchy are not as great as they might seem.