Reflection: Hobbes' State of Nature

Little something I'd intended to post last week but apparently never hit "publish" on - this was supposed to be a post-class entry, now I guess it's a post-post class entry.  Oh well, I'll take that one on the chin.

  For this week, I wanted to reflect a bit on Hobbes' description of the "state of nature," beginning with its abstract meanings as we discussed Tuesday, and attempt to extrapolate those to the real world.  It's perhaps a bit ironic knowing what we do of Hobbes, but in his state of nature, everyone is more or less endowed with the same general rights with no hierarchy to denote any additional exclusive rights or claims a person may have (so much for the divine right of kings?).  In absence of any hierarchy, men are effectively equal to each other, and are forced into competition over resources if they wish to survive, and have the right to do whatever they deem necessary in order to preserve their own survival.  Though, here, "right" shouldn't be considered in a legal sense as there's obviously no institutions in place to recognize that right - here, perhaps "might" is the best understanding of Hobbes' idea, that individuals have the power to do whatever they can in order to preserve themselves.  Hobbes calls this a "war of all against all," for it's his belief that in this state, violence and coercion are inevitable consequences as people go about securing resources for their own needs.

  Hobbes' state of nature is intended to be considered in abstract, though he argues that we see glimpses of the state of nature during civil wars.  Writing during the midpoint of the English Civil Wars (Charles I had just been executed in 1649, prompting his son to launch an invasion of Scotland in 1650, while Leviathan was published in 1651), Hobbes had already been witness to much violence, perhaps coloring his views somewhat - in his mind, it seems almost certain that Parliamentarians and their inability to cooperate with the monarchy had been responsible for causing the conflict, thus Parliament would be a feature best left out of the kingdom once it had been restored in his view.

  These ideas got me thinking about what Hobbes might have to say about civil wars that have occurred after his death and what he might think of their outcomes.  Particularly interesting to me is the French Revolution and its aftermath, though the 20th Century has provided no shortage of interesting case studies.

  The French Revolution's causes are still up for debate by historians, though there is some agreement over the fact that unpopular taxation schemes (intended to cover debts of the Seven Years' War and American Revolutionary War) coupled with bad harvests had combined to produce a festering resentment of the aristocracy and of the monarch among the common folk.  Under Hobbes' view, the revolution likely would have been considered unjust, for the most part, the French military was still able to defend its citizens.  Interestingly, this capability did not erode after the abolition of monarchy and execution of Louis XIV, instead France was successful in a series of wars lasting the next 20 years.  However, the installation of Napoleon as dictator in 1799 muddies the story of the Revolution's success somewhat.  Having killed their King, and the aristocracy during the Reign of Terror, Hobbes would likely say that in absence of a strong sovereign, the people clamored to install a new one the moment he arose before them - perhaps a return to order preferred by Hobbes, as this, at least, falls in-line with his social contract theory perfectly.

Dates retrieved from (and cursory knowledge of French Revolution refreshed by):
"Principal Dates and Time Line of the French Revolution." Principal Dates and Time Line of the French Revolution. Accessed September 15, 2016. https://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/timeline.htm.