Page:The ethics of Hobbes (IA ethicsofhobbes00hobb).pdf/40
essence of the commonwealth, which may be defined as "one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence."[1] Such a common power is the sovereign. Those who have thus surrendered their rights are the subjects; and the kind of commonwealth thus defined is a political commonwealth, or a commonwealth by institution,[2] as distinguished from a commonwealth by acquisition, which is based not on mutual covenant, but on natural force.
The "rights" of the sovereign as sovereign are derived from the "institution of the commonwealth." Among
- ↑ Leviathan, Pt. II., chap. XVII. How widely removed is this conception of the origin of the State from that of Aristotle. The Greek philosopher regarded man as constitutionally political. He says: "Ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον." Grotius also says that the "appetite for society" is a property peculiar to man."
- ↑ Mr. Ritchie (Natural Rights, p. 11) calls attention to the fact that while Hobbes does not seem to ascribe any historical character to the social contract, which is at the basis of all political society, and while Rousseau expressly disclaims the attempt to offer an historical explanation (Contrat Social, 1., c. I.) of how governments came into existence, Locke seeks to give historical proofs of the origin of political society by means of contract, referring to the cases of Rome and Venice (Treatise of Civil Government, II., § 102), and speaks of the state of nature as a golden age in the past."
misunderstood, and, no doubt, some superficial readers have supposed that he was pointing at despotism when he was really referring to the essentially unqualified power of the Sovereign, whatever the form of the sovereignty. But I do not think it can in candour be denied that his strong dislike of the Long Parliament and of the English Common Law, as the great instrument of resistance to the Stuart kings, has occasionally coloured the language which he uses in examining the nature of Sovereignty, Law, and Anarchy." ― Early History of Institutions, Lec. XII. However, notwithstanding his decided preference for a monarchical form of government, Hobbes says, after pointing out the nature of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, that "of the three sorts, which is the best, is not to be disputed, where any one of them is already established; but the present ought always to he preferred, maintained, and accounted best; because it is against both the law of nature, and the divine positive law, to do anything lending to the subversion thereof." Leviathan, Pt. III., chap. XIII.