". . . they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; nor transferre their Person from him that beareth it . . ." (229)
". . . there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretense of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection . . ." (230)
". . . because the major part hath by consenting voices decared a Soveraigne; he that dissented must now consent with the rest . . ." (231)
". . . they that have Soveraigne power, may commit Iniquity; but not Injustice, or Injury in the proper signification." (232)
". . . it is annexed to the Soveraignty, to be Judge of what Opinions and Doctrines are averse, and what conducing to Peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how farre, and what, men are to be trusted withall . . ." (233)
Hobbes describes these and other "Rights of Soveraignes" in Chap. XVIII. As I read, I instinctively balked at many of them - particularly that the sovereign's judgement is final and that the sovereign may never be deposed. To a certain extent this is due only to Hobbes' language: if one replaces "Soveraigne" with "government" (as Hobbes allows when he writes that the ruling body may be either an individual or an assembly), his statements don't seem so radical. However, even with this change, I wonder to how many of Hobbes' "Rights of Soveraignes" we have consciously or unconsciously agreed. Could even his statements about censorship be reconciled with our modern/American government? What about the government making moral or factual judgments, as with abortion - is this the place of government, and if one's personal judgments differ, how is one to respond?
No comments:
Post a Comment