Defense on Hobbess Claim that Sovereign Power Cannot be Forfeited - Essay Example

Defense on Hobbes’s claim that sovereign power cannot be forfeited Thesis ment Sovereign power cannot be relented Discussion According to Hobbes, a commonwealth becomes instituted when a group of people comes with an agreement and a covenant for assembly of men, such that they have a right to act as representatives, including those who vote for the covenant and those that do not vote (124). Hobbes goes ahead to say that, from the institution of commonwealth, the representatives do not receive the rights and faculties which the sovereign power confers to them (125). Arguing from a Locke’s point of view, sovereignty is in the hands of the people since people have natural rights, which are equal, and thus the people live free from outside the rule (256). This implies that every person, whether a representative or not, has natural rights to do whatever they like. People have bounds to own their actions and judgment and cannot make a new covenant in the midst of themselves, lawfully to be obedient to any other commonwealth’s (Hobbes, 177). This is in relation to the covenant made when coming up with a commonwealth. The covenants in consideration may be the rights of a person. According to Locke, each person has a license to execute the natural law against anyone who goes against them by infringing their rights (234). This statement is satirical since when two parties are in a covenant of a commonwealth, they cannot form other covenants. Additionally, their rights get bound by the covenant. Hobbes is of the opinion that the first law of nature requires that people seek peace, the fact that is achieved through the establishment of contracts (145). Ironically, the natural proclivity of men towards power impels them to sever contracts without fearing that they might face punishment. Without considering the rights that people have, Hobbes goes ahead to explain that the basic social contract of the commonwealth vests power in one sovereign authority, which has the power to punish the people who break the contract. Nevertheless, people swap some of their rights so as to enter a contract with other people (Locke, 306). These rights ensure that when a contract gets terminated, there is no punishment to the aggrieved party. This is because the common law, according to Locke, assumes that people have executive power when entering a contract. Under the sovereign rule, people get impelled by fear which helps to keep the commonwealth functioning seamlessly (Hobbes, 202). This rule cannot be forfeited since if the state is in consideration as the person, the soul of that person is the sovereignty concept and the person’s head is the sovereign part of that person. Though complex to comprehend, the rule is supreme since it explains that each person exists individually, and all decisions regarding to the person can only be made by the person only. The artificial person, according to Hobbes, represents the states totally as the Leviathan (179). In the normal sense, the Leviathan is a sea monster in reference to the Bible which depicts the seven princess of Hell. This depicts that the artificial person exists in the gate mouth to a troubled place. The artificial person is under scrutiny in this case, because the contract is what every person wants to escape the state of nature by signing contracts. This is the reason of why people have a desire to escape the state of nature through contracts, where all people put up a common clout at the top of their commonwealth and submit it to flee the fear of each other (267). The sovereign does all that is necessary, to defend the commonwealth (Hobbes 267). This power is crucial since a commonwealth constitutes of many parties, which have different laws and leadership and are prone to constant rebellion. Sovereign law is thus necessary to make sure that all the concerned parties have a universal law governing the operation to avoid the differences since all individual rights are under one person, and all the parties have to follow the sovereign’s commands in regard to defense. Hobbes explains that the commonwealth may be created either through institution, agreement or through acquisition where force is in use (346). The statement implies that the sovereign rule cannot be forfeited. This is false in all cases since the people taken by force following the sovereign may oppose acquisition. This action deposes the sovereign before it controls the people. According to Hobbes, if people do not refuse acquisition initially, the sovereign holds the right of dominion over the subjects (290). This implies that it is impossible to forfeit sovereign since it operates back and forth. The principal reason why one cannot forfeit the sovereign power is because it is the foundation of all the knowledge which is true as well as the embodied power which underlies all civil peace. Basing the argument on the reading by Locke, a person cannot forfeit the sovereign since there are three forms of sovereign authority, which get created through a contract (309). These are monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Their complexity ensures that no person can out do the sovereign after its creation. People require executive power to guard their property and be able to defend their liberty. Hobbes states that liberty is the aptitude to do something according to one’s own will without physical hindrances (276). Usually, one can only stop acting according to their will if one is in chains. This perspective implies that personal liberty contained in the sovereign rule is supreme and cannot be forfeited. Hobbes states that there are free subjects that help maintain liberty under the rule of sovereign (188). Personal liberty is vital for every person, such that every person would support the sovereign rule which supports liberty for individuals. When every person likes the rule and becomes committed to it, it is impossible to forfeit the rule of sovereign. After entering a contract with the sovereign, there is no possibility of making complains concerning the “chains”. This implies that after one enters the rule of sovereign, there are boundaries with regards to the chains making the rule of sovereign hard to forfeit. It is impossible to forfeit the law, according to Hobbes, since there are subunits of society, such as systems within the body including trade organizations, towns and households established by the sovereign. This includes individual people joined by a common interest. Political systems, according to Hobbes, get established by the rule of the sovereign led by ministers appointed by the sovereign and representing the will of sovereign (189). This idea of forming political systems through the rule of sovereign ensures that it is impossible to forfeit the sovereign. There are private systems established by the rule of sovereign. The systems get created by independent subjects, and they are responsible for their operation. Under sovereign, the appointed ministers act jointly in the Leviathanic body. This makes them manipulate the movements of all the boughs. Manipulation makes the sovereign rule difficult to forfeit, because political influence is supreme. Goods produced within the commonwealth form the core point on which the Leviathan’s body subsists. This implies that to acquire the goods produced within the commonwealth one has to be part of the commonwealth and this implies that the sovereign rule applies. It is impossible to forfeit the rule if a person wants to purchase goods from the commonwealth, since the rule controls the operations of the commonwealth market. The sovereign (on a negative perspective) lacks supreme power where the subjects maintain faith in the paranormal unlike submitting to the erudite doctrine of sovereign. In this case, it becomes somehow easy to forfeit the rule, since matters of evil and righteous depend on individuals while, in the real sense, the rule should be made by the civil law. The rule, according to the research carried out by Hobbes, implies that the authorities are divided and under different powers (209). This implies that the rule in question can be contrasted to that of the government of the Romans and Greeks. Conclusion The discussion by Hobbes explains the complex function of the Leviathan’s body and its different government forms (124). This boils down to the strident belief that a body which has two heads, is unable to function freely. So as to establish whether the rule is forfeitable, the author brings out the list of advantages that are inherent and absolutist to monarchies. The interest of people and those of the monarch is similar since, both share political and physical bodies. The reading discusses the various ideas brought forward by Hobbes in the essay and helps to come up with the idea of whether the rule of sovereign can be forfeited. The conflicts that arise over the succession of government power are not possible since the sovereign gets empowered in determining the successor of the government. This point brought out by the essay is crucial, since the supremacy brought out by the essay explains the power required to forfeit the rule. From the reading, it is clear that the rule of the sovereign is complex, and it is difficult to forfeit the rule. Works cited Hobbes, Thomas, and C B. Macpherson. Leviathan: Hobbes Hobbes; Edited with an Introduction by C. B. Macpherson. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1985. Print. Locke, John, and Crawford B. Macpherson. Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis, In [u.a.: Hackett, 1980. Print. Read More