The Hobbesian State of Nature Among Nations

THE HOBBESIAN STATE OF NATURE

AMONG NATIONS

Brianna Sargent

A capstone project submitted in partial fulfillment of graduation from the Academic Honors Program at Ashland University April 2019

Faculty Mentor: Dr. Rene Paddags, Associate Professor of Political Science Additional Reader: Dr. Gregory McBrayer, Assistant Professor of Political Science

Abstract

The state of nature is a dangerous place filled with violence and confusion. For this reason, the state of nature only exists for short times among individuals, yet it has lasted between nations. This begs the question, if the state of nature is so dangerous, why does it still exist on the international stage? This question is answered first by understanding the Hobbesian state of nature, explaining the laws of nature and rights of the sovereign, comparing the international state of nature to the individual state of nature, and finally, exploring the possibilities of nations exiting the state of nature. Through Thomas Hobbes’ analysis of the state of nature, it can be seen that the international state of nature does not behave the same way it does among individuals. The mild international state of nature remains due to lack of fear for survival.

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..Page 3

Section One: The Hobbesian State of Nature…………………………………………..Page 7

Section Two: The Laws of Nature and the Rights of Sovereigns………………………Page 14

Section Three: Individual State of Nature vs. International State of Nature……………Page 33

Section Four: Why there is no Global Sovereign……………………………………….Page 44

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………Page 51

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………..Page 55

Author’s Biography………….………………………………………………………….Page 56

iii

Introduction

The state of nature exists when there is no presence of a legitimate authority among a group of people. This state of nature does not exist for very long. When the state of nature is being examined, it is presumed to be early in human history before governments and societies were established. This was a pre-historic time in which humans were living on their own or in small family units, while living the hunter and gatherer lifestyle. The land sustained them, and they did not stay in one area for very long at a time. This was before farming began, before tribes were established, and before humans were populace enough to be forced to live together. As this was pre-historic, there is no actual documentation about the state of nature while it existed, but rather the state of nature is thought back upon and used as an explanation as to how humans began to live in societies together. The state of nature no longer exists among individuals; therefore, it is now a thought experiment that many thinkers tackled, most prominently, Hobbes,

Locke, and Rousseau. These theories and more can be seen in other, more modern media such as the book The Lord of the Flies. Although all of these theories and stories differ slightly, they all serve to explain why humans now live in organized communities in the modern era. The state of nature no longer exists except in certain circumstances. This fictional example of “The Lord of the Flies” is about when a group of humans exit civil society together which causes a modern- day state of nature. In this story, a group of people is stranded in the wilderness that plunges them into the state of nature. This state of nature is often resolved quickly by a person taking charge of the group or by rescue. However, the spot of time between being stranded and allowing one of their fellow members to rule the group is the state of nature. The only other place the state of nature is preserved is in international relations.

Individuals cannot survive without society, but if the state of nature is so dangerous, why does it remain in existence in the international realm? This preservation of the international state

of nature is curious because it has been enduring. Every study on the state of nature has agreed upon the fact that the state of nature is unstable and dangerous, and that it is human nature to exit the state of nature as quickly as possible. Countries have not formed an international government or even a regulatory system to keep other nations in line. According to Hobbes this means that there is no justice between nations as they are all at war by remaining in the state of nature. If the state of nature of individuals were analogous to the state of nature among nations, there would be no separate nations. The countries of the world would come together either in a coalition covenant while each country retains some of its own sovereignty, or in the joining completely of separate nations to create one sovereign to rule the entire world. Neither of these options have been even considered as an exit to the international state of nature, and frankly, these options read as the antagonist’s plotline in a science fiction story. Nations are not even making moves toward developing a way to exit the state of nature. The idea of a world government seems laughable, yet according to Hobbes’ theory of the state of nature, it is the safest state in which to exist.

The state of nature does not seem to be a problem between nations as it is between individuals. For individuals, the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (89).

Individuals spend their lives in the state of nature simply surviving. They do not create anything spectacular and they do not live for long. Nations can thrive on their own. Although some falter, there is nothing preventing a nation from becoming powerful and unstoppable completely by itself. Individuals cannot last in the state of nature: for nations, on the other hand, staying in the state of nature is simply how nations interact to preserve their own sovereignty. Nations remain individual actors on the world stage. Even when they do interact. They preserve their sovereignty above all else, even their survival in some cases.

This is because the state of nature does not affect nations the way it affects individuals.

The international state of nature is mild as nations to not face the same fear as individuals do in the state of nature. Nations do not exist the same way humans do which takes away some of the natural weakness that comes with having a moral body. The state of nature exists between nations, but it does not behave the same way it does among individuals, which is why countries have not entered into covenants with each other to protect their well-being. They do not have enough fear to warrant the exit from the state of nature. This is analyzed through understanding the state of nature for individuals, the laws and rights in the state of nature, how the individual state of nature compares to the international state of nature, and what the world would look like if the international state of nature would cease to exist.

Section One:

The Hobbesian State of Nature

The Hobbesian state of nature is brutal. Men are constantly battling each other for food, resources, and defense. Even the strongest men are perpetually in danger because there is no justice and no way to be certain about one’s own safety. Hobbes states that in the state of nature men are naturally equal in their bodies, minds, and hopes. Each person has the same bodily weaknesses, the same basic mental capacities, and the same will to survive. This can be difficult to believe as equality is rarely seen in this sense today. Some men are skilled in bodily strength and some are skilled in intellectual capacities. This difference can hardly be described as equal; because despite whatever physical abilities may offer advantages to those who are stronger, every human body has the same weakness. Even the strongest man alive is still a man, and the human body requires sleep. Hobbes states,

“…as that though there bee found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind then another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not considerable… For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himselfe.” (Hobbes 87)

Men who are weaker can still conquer those stronger than them by forming a group of other men or by secretly attacking while the strong man is sleeping or incapacitated. Through the power of numbers or secret intervention, weak men become stronger than the men who are strong of body.

Human ingenuity conquers strength. Humans are equal in the fact that they have the mind to take down others because all humans have the same bodily weaknesses. The weaknesses that the human body presents are naturally equalizing. The mind is even more equal than that of the body because in the state of nature, intelligence is simply that of prudence. “For Prudence, is but

Experience; which equall time, equally bestowes on all men, in those things they equally apply themselves unto” states Hobbes to explain that men in the state of nature have the same experiences which allow them to have equal facilities of the mind (87). Because knowledge is 8

just experience in the state of nature, humans experience the same things while trying to survive and are therefore equal. After humans exit the state of nature and have the bodily security enough to pursue education of the mind, this equality ceases to exist. Hobbes continues by stating, “From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our Ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which neverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in their way to the End, endeavour to destroy, or subdue one an other”

(87). Because men are equal, they require equal resources to survive, and their desire to survive, even at the cost of another, is also equal. This equal hope for one man’s ends is a defining feature of Hobbes’ state of nature. This equal and bitter fight over the same resources is what makes the state of nature the state of war.

Before individuals enter a society, they spend their lives fighting in the state of war. All men have the same reasons for fighting. Men fight for competition, diffidence, or glory. The world has a limited number of resources to sustain life on the planet. When there is no order as to how men are obtaining and using these resources, men are forced to compete over them. This competition is used for gain. Men gain resources as well as dominion over others. The competition is the first use of violence in the state of war. Competition is aggression towards another in order to gain control over a resource that cannot be enjoyed publicly. The second use of violence in the state of war is for defense. Hobbes states, “The first use of Violence, to make themselves Masters of other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattell; the second, to defend them…” (88). This is the diffidence men fight for. Defense is only ever followed by an act of aggression such as the violence of a competition. This violence of defense is for the safety of an individual and their family and property. Defense is not aggression and cannot be used the same way. The third reason for violence in the state of nature is glory. “… the third, for trifles, as a

word, as smile, a different opinion, and any other signe of undervalue, either direct in their

Persons, or by reflexion in their Kindred, their Friends, their Nation, their Profession, or their

Name,” Hobbes states directly following the explanation of the first and second uses of violence

(88). After a man has fought for gain or for defense he will then fight or continue to fight to guard or create a reputation for himself. This glory is usually false and unbeneficial to the individual.

Hobbes notes that humans experience two types of glory; glory and vainglory or false glory. Both are passions, but they behave differently and lead to different outcomes. Real glory is joy in a person’s past actions. Hobbes states, “Joy, arising from imagination of a man’s own power and ability, is that exultation of the mind which is called Glorying: which if grounded upon the experience of his own former actions, is the same with Confidence…” (42). This true glory is to be given only to the sovereign and God. A normal man cannot experience true glory because he is not divine. An individual man can do great things, but if he takes pride in his own ability it turns to vainglory, not true glory. When a man bases his joy and pride in false accomplishment or merely praise from others, it turns into vainglory. Hobbes states, “…but if grounded on the flattery of others; or onely supposed by himself, for delight in the consequences of it, is called Vaine-Glory: which name is properly given; because a well grounded Confidence begetteth Attempt; whereas the supposing of power does not, and is therefore rightly called

Vaine” (42). Vainglory is the most common type of glory and is greatest cause of crime within a covenant and in the state of nature. “Of the Passions that most frequently are the causes of

Crime, one, of Vain-glory, or a foolish over-rating of their own worth; as if difference of worth, were an effect of their wit, or riches, or bloud, or some other naturall quality, not depending on the Will of those that have the Soveraign Authority” (205). Vainglory causes men to put their

pride in front of their needs for survival. When a man is more worried about his reputation than his survival then he will not be willing to join a covenant even when it is required of him to save his own life. Men must put down their own glory to save themselves from the state of nature. If a man believes that he can survive by himself in the state of nature, then he will be killed or overtaken by another. Men join covenants to protect themselves from the others in the state of nature. When one is too full of vainglory to see this, he cannot be saved from the state of nature and will die.

Humans are constantly in conflict in the state of nature. This is because, until a contract is developed, there is no justice between individuals. Hobbes states, “Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man” (88). By not having any justice outside of a social contract, anything someone wants to do to another is allowed. Without a common power to curb this fighting, the state of nature remains a state of war. If people make contracts with each other for their own survival, they simultaneously exit the state of nature and enter into a society. This end of the state of war is necessary to survival because the state of war is unstable. War takes up the full mind of the individuals involved, meaning that nothing other than war and bare minimum survival can be achieved. Hobbes states,

“In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” (89)

If all a man is thinking about is how to make it through the night, he does not have time to expand his mind through study. He only has time to preserve his own life. This makes life for 11

men in the state of nature brutish and short. They do not have the time or resources to not be brutish. This brutishness of each individual turned on the others leads to a short life that has accomplished nothing other than survival for as long as possible. Hobbes claims that the best way for men to protect themselves and enter into a society is to form a society led by a sovereign with absolute power. This sovereign can take any form, the rule of one, the rule of few, or the rule of many. During Hobbes’ life, the rule of one was most common in the form of monarchies, but he recognized that this form of government was not the only form to have created and maintained social contracts to allow the people release from the state of nature.

Men exit the state of nature out of fear. They fear the other individuals in the state of nature and join a covenant to be saved from harm that will inevitably befall them. Hobbes states,

“Fear of oppression, disposeth a man to anticipate, or to seek aid by society: for there is no other way by which a man can secure his life and liberty” (72). This fear is the motivation for men to protect themselves by joining a society. Joining a covenant is the only way a man can ensure his life, property, and freedom. Men give up trying to protect themselves in favor of a sovereign who will protect the subjects instead. This makes life easier and more enjoyable for all men who join a society. Even if the sovereign is brutal and daft, men will be safer in the covenant than in the state of nature. At minimum, under a sovereign, men do not need to fear how short and miserable their lives would be in the state of nature. In the state of nature, all men are at war with all others.

This makes the state of nature unstable and miserable as all other humans are adversaries. Men can only enjoy freedom in a covenant because in the state of nature, they are slaves to their own fear and the necessity of their survival. The fear in the state of nature is so intense that a sensible man will do anything to be rid of it, including giving up their rights to a sovereign.

The state of nature is so horrible for individuals that sane men will do anything to exit and form society. Men naturally crave the order and protection given to them by a sovereign.

They fear the state of nature and the other individuals who are also in the state of nature. This fear is so intense that the state of nature is very short lived. Men resolve the state of nature as quickly as they can and as best they can in order to escape the fear that plagues them. The state of nature occurs only in passing for individuals.

Section Two:

The Laws of Nature and the Rights of Sovereigns

Hobbes outlines nineteen laws of nature that people follow naturally to end the state of nature, or at least to limit the detriment to their own lives. All these laws are found through reason and are immutable and eternal. This means that as much as a person may wish to get rid of or disregard any of these laws of nature, it is impossible. These laws also do not have an expiration date. They are good for all conditions and in all eras of human history. The laws as a whole boil down to one guiding principle of do not do to others what you do not want done to you in turn. Hobbes states, “And though this may seem too subtile a deduction of the Lawes of

Nature, to be taken notice of by all men… they have been contracted into one easie sum, intelligible, even to the meanest capacity; and that is, Do not that to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thy selfe…” (109). This is the best way to guide man’s moral behavior, as each man knows how he wishes to be treated. However, the difficult part is making sure man reflects these wishes onto others. If a man knows that he does not wish to be attacked and robbed, he should not be attacking and robbing anyone else lest the favor is returned to him.

The nineteen laws of nature are this guiding principle extrapolated into specifics, so man will be more likely to following the laws of nature. These laws of nature are applicable to all men, and many of the laws also apply to nations and how the behave with each other. Laws one though four, ten, and fifteen directly apply to nations as well as individuals. A few laws apply to only individuals, but most can relate to nations as well although not directly. All the laws are important to understand because they explain why the state of nature behaves as it does. All of the laws do not necessarily directly translate to nations, but they do explain how the state of nature behaves.

The laws of nature are found through reason and are therefore natural and exist in the state of nature as well as in a covenant. Hobbes writes them in order of the two laws that drive

men to enter into covenants, the three laws that accompany the creation of a covenant, and the fourteen final laws that outline how men should live together. The first and second laws describe why and how one should enter into a covenant. The subsequent laws are specific actions one should take to live peacefully in a covenant with others. The first law of nature is that man should seek peace then follow the peace when he finds it. Hobbes states, “The first branch of which Rule, containeth the first, and Fundamentall Law of Nature; which is, to seek Peace, and follow it” (92). This requires exiting the state of nature and war to find peace. People should use finding peace as motivation to enter covenants and exit the state of war. Why people exit the state of nature is because of this first law dictating that humans should be searching for peace amongst themselves. The state of nature does not produce a good life for individuals. Hobbes describes the life in the state of nature as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Humans do not want to live in conditions like this. Naturally, people strive to have better, easier lives, meaning that they must search for peace in order to sooth their longing for better lives. The state of nature cannot and will not provide a life that is any more than survival for as long as possible. People must search for this peace and follow it straight into covenants so that they are able to better care for themselves. The search for peace and an escape from the state of nature is natural. People must also seek peace because they are fearful of the state of war. This fear is what drives individuals to enter into contracts with others. People do not like to work together, but they will when it is necessary for their survival. Hobbes believes that individuals must use this fear as a driving force to seek peace and enter into contracts. People know that they are equal and can be conquered by others, so they come together out of fear to make sure their survival is preserved.

When a covenant is formed, people have less to fear from others. As the covenant becomes bigger and stronger, the less people have to fear. The more people fear in the state of nature, the

more inclined they are to find peace in a society. Hobbes states this as the first law of nature because the drive to find peace is the motivation to find an exit to the state of nature. Without this motivation for peace, the other laws would be unnecessary as they only exist within covenants. This first law is also felt within the international state of nature. Countries want to be in peace. War is only used when the benefits outweigh the loss a nation will experience when entering into a war. Nations do not enter into full covenants with each other for peace as individuals do, but they do experience this natural drive for peace. Different countries may enter into looser agreements with one another to preserve this peace, but because the wanting of peace is so great on an international scale, there is currently no need for nations to form full covenants.

The second law of nature is to defend oneself with only the force necessary in the state of war and that men must give up some of their own rights in order to safely form a covenant.

Hobbes states,

“From this Fundamentall Law of Nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour Peace, is derived this second Law; That a man be willing, when others are so too, as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defence of himselfe he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himselfe.” (92)

In order to gain peace from the state of war, men must enter into a contract with the other. The contracts that bind men to each other and out of the state of nature require men to give up some of their natural rights. Hobbes then continues by explaining the several ways a man is able to give up his rights to form a contract. Laying down a right either by renouncing that right or by transferring the right is a limit of one’s own liberty, but a necessity to exit the state of war. When the giving of rights is one sided, this is considered a gift or grace. This happens when one party transfers their rights to another with the hope to gain friendship, magnanimity, or compassion.

When the giving of rights is mutual, a contract is formed. This contract releases the individuals

from the state of war, but they should not trust the contract just for itself. When either party breaks the contract, the parties are instantly plunged back into the state of war, and Hobbes states, “For he that performeth first, has no assurance the other will performe after; because bonds of words are too weak to bridle mens ambition, avarice, anger, and other Passions…” (96).

Covenants should be made in order to create an alternative to the state of war, but they should be made cautiously and monitored closely. Creating these covenants is the way to follow the first law of nature of seeking peace and following it. Nations follow the law that they may and must defend themselves with only the force necessary in the state of war. This is a basic regulation and is, of course, broken by different generals and countries throughout the world, but generally this law is followed naturally in the international state of nature. Covenants have not been formed internationally, but when and if nations ever feel the need to join together, these laws as to how covenants are formed would have to be followed just as they are for individuals. Covenants function the same way whether it is between men or nations.

The next three laws explain how and why men enter into covenants. These laws show men how their covenants with each other will work and how to overcome the obstacles present in creating a covenant. The third law of nature is, “That men preforme their Covenants made…”

(100). Men must follow through with the agreements they made while forming a covenant. If they do not, there would be no point in creating the covenant in the first place. This would be the common sense that agreeable individuals would follow when entering a covenant, but when individuals first exit the state of war, they are adversaries of each other and must be reminded that they are to act upon what they agreed to in the covenant. If individuals do not understand this seemingly basic principle, entering a civil society is impossible. Hobbes made this the third law of nature because it is pivotal to the preservation of the covenant and it is the beginning of

justice. According to Hobbes, justice can only be found within the confines of a covenant.

Injustice is when a man does not keep his word in a covenant, so to create justice in a society, men must stick to their covenants. Without a covenant, there is no justice at all. This law acts the same among nations. Currently, there is no justice internationally because nations have not formed any covenants. This means something considered unjust in one country does not translate to the others. When nations wage war, it is not unjust because there is no covenant in place and therefore, no justice. The only justice that exists internationally is when nations form treaties.

Although not full covenants, were a treaty to be dismissed or not followed, the treaty would fall apart due to injustice and there would be no reason to have formed a treaty in the first place. The fourth law of nature is “That a man which receiveth Benefit from another of meer Grace,

Endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will”

(105). No man is going to give anything without expecting something in return. This is what makes covenants work; each man expects something from the other and will give in return only when their wants are met. Without this basic understanding contracts will not work because no man will give for nothing in return. This law is directly applicable on the international stage as no country will do something for another without expecting in return. Even humanitarian aid given to other, struggling nations is paid forward with the expectation of soft power paid back to the first nation. Relationships between individuals and nations only work in this give and take fashion as both parties work with the other for personal benefit. The fifth law of nature is, “That every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest” (106). Men want to live in societies. Civil society is much easier for the individual to live in since it is secure, and he does not have to worry about his survival. Men naturally strive for this security and it will drive them to enter into covenants. This is not so for countries, as they prefer isolationism when possible, but men

naturally want to be with others and live in societies as it is safer and easier. For this reason, men have a natural drive to exit the state of nature.

The remaining fourteen laws Hobbes describes are guidelines as to how one should live in society. This is because one needs to establish a society before learning how to make the society functional. The rest of the laws add details as to why individuals should form covenants and how to preserve these covenants. The sixth law of nature is, “That upon caution of the Future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it” (106). The first law of nature is that individuals should strive for peace. Pardons allow for forgiveness and make space for peace. If a man makes a pardon with resentment and reservation, fear is still a player and makes the pardon illegitimate. A pardon should be made wholly and absolutely to make room for peace to enter as the first law states. Without this sixth law, the first law is impossible because men can be utterly brutal in the state of war, but if that fear is not given up and the actions pardoned, then a covenant with true peace is impossible to create. The seventh law is,

“That in Revenges (that is, retribution of Evil for Evil,) Men look not at the greatnesse of the evill past, but the greatnesse of the good to follow” (106). Punishments should be given to correct a wrong, not to inflict revenge. Using punishment for revenge creates resentment which again makes it impossible for a society to follow the first law of seeking and maintaining peace.

Punishments must be used, but only as a means of correcting wrong doings and nothing more.

The eighth law of nature is, “That no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare

Hatred, or Contempt of another” (107). Signs of hatred or contempt provoke violence. This violence impedes the ability to control a population under a civil society. There is no point to providing peace within a covenant if the individuals are just going to continue to fight each other. The ninth law is “That everyman acknowledge other for this Equall by Nature” (107). Men

are equal by nature in the state of nature, and each man should respect this fact even within a civil society. No man is inherently better than any other. In the state of nature this is easy to see as men had to fight each other for survival, However, in a civil society, the fact that men are equal must be kept at the forefront of one’s mind or it can be easy for a society to develop that oppresses a certain type of man. Oppression stems from assuming inequality between men, but this inequality is fabricated since all men are equal by nature. This is a law simply to assure that this equality is respected. The tenth law is, “That at the entrance into conditions of Peace, no man require to reserve to himselfe any Right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest” (107). To enter into a covenant, all men have to give up some of their rights. These rights that are given up must be given universally from all subjects in the covenant. One must give up any right he would not want another to retain. Individuals are not allowed the right to violence in civil society because they would turn this violence against each other. Since the right to violence cannot be allowed, all individuals must give up this right when they exit the state of nature. The only rights that the sovereign may never take away from subject are the right to govern one’s own body and the right to the enjoyment of air, water, and motion. These rights are necessary to live well and cannot be taken away in any covenant. This law can distinctly be seen in the international realm as to why nations have not formed a covenant. If nations were to come together to form an international covenant, then they would be required to give up their rights to a sovereign, just as individuals are, which is why they have remained in the state of nature.

The following laws are in regard to legal proceedings and how to keep the peace of a civil society when there are disagreements or strife. The eleventh law of nature is, “if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, it is a precept of the Law of Nature, that he deale Equally between them” (108). This is a simple law to ensure that men in a civil society receive equal

treatment by the law since all men are equal and should be treated like it. If this law were to not exist, then it would be easy for a ruler to favor certain people or types of people. It is required that men be dealt with equally, as it is a law of protection. The twelfth law is, “That such things cannot be divided, be enjoyed in Common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without Stint; otherwise Proportionably to the number of them that have Right” (108). In a civil society, men are able and entitled to owning private property, but not all things within a civil society should be private. There are some things that cannot be split and enjoyed by everyone.

Roads, for example, cannot be private property. Roads cannot be split amongst the population, as they are good for the whole of the society. Without roads, it is difficult to travel or trade, and it is less safe which makes the whole society suffer, so they should be used in common. Roads are good for all and should be used by all. This law is another protection on the equality of men. The thirteenth law is, “That the Entire Right; or else, (making the use alternate,) the First Possession, be determined by Lot” (108). This law simply deals with how to split public property into private property. As to how to split this property, the fourteenth law comes into play. It states, “Of Lots ther be two sorts, Arbitrary, and Naturall. Arbitrary is that which is agreed on by the

Competitors: Naturall, is either Primogeniture, or First Seisure” (108). This law simply states that property can be split according to agreements from all parties involved or by inheritance.

These laws keep the peace because the conquest of property is one of the three reasons that men fight each other, so if the property accumulation is regulated by law, there is no need for the violence that would take over in its place. Violence determined where property went in the state of nature, but that cannot continue if one wants a civil society, so property must be determined by law. The fifteenth law of nature is, “That all men that mediate Peace, be allowed safe

Conduct” (108). This simply means that if a man is working towards peace between two

individuals, he should not be harmed in the process. This coincides with the first law as to seek peace and follow it. Harming someone who is working towards the first goal of finding peace and maintaining it would be counterproductive and against the first law as well as the fifteenth and other laws depending on the specific situation. This law is mostly seen on the international stage in the modern era. Mediators for nations are the diplomats and government officials that conduct peace. These individuals should be given safe passage when conducting peace between nations. This is wildly accepted and expected when countries interact. When a diplomat is harmed in their pursuit of peace, it is seen as incredibly disrespectful and, in many cases, a declaration of war. Naturally, nations seek peace with each other, and this allowance of mediators is simply an extension of that desire for peace. The sixteenth law is, “That they that are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator” (109). This is another law that uses the law to prevent violence. When two individuals were in disagreement in the state of nature, they used violence to determine the winner of the argument, but individual violence is not permitted once one leave the state of nature; therefore, a disagreement must be taken to a judge to settle it peacefully. This judge must judge equally as the eleventh law states because he will be the one to determine the outcome of the disagreement. This is the basis of court in civil society. When the two feuding parties cannot determine the right choice for themselves, they must take their disagreement to an impartial judge to find the right path to take in the situation of disagreement. In addition to the sixteenth law, the seventeenth law states, “And seeing every man is presumed to do all things in order to his own benefit, no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause…” (109). Men naturally believe that their opinion is the correct one, so they cannot be the judge of their own cause or they will never be able to take the other side into consideration. The point of finding an impartial judge for disagreements is that the individuals cannot end the

disagreement on their own, so having one of the men involved as his own judge would be imprudent and useless. Another addition to the sixteenth law is the eighteenth law which states,

“For the same reason no man in any Cause ought to be received for Arbitrator, to whom greater profit, or honour, or pleasure apparently ariseth out of the victory of one party, than of the other: for hee hath taken a bribe; and no man can be obliged to trust him” (109). Even if a man is not directly involved in the conflict at hand, if he has any preconceived opinions on the topic or if he will benefit in any way from the decision, he is unfit to be judge over the case. If a judge takes a bribe or has any stake in the outcome of the case, he is unfit to be judge as he will not longer be impartial. The nineteenth and final law is, “And in a controversie of Fact, the Judge being to give no more credit to one, than to the other much give credit to a third; or a third and fourth; or more…” (109). If a judge has heard both sides of a conflict and still cannot establish a definite outcome for a dispute, he must consult witnesses to the conflict. This witness or witnesses will offer a new and often less partial perspective as to the conflict. For this reason, witnesses will aid in the discovery of truth that the judge seeks and may be an absolute necessity in some disagreements. These laws that Hobbes outlines lead to protection for all citizens within a society. These laws require individuals to join a civil society and regulate how they maintain that civil society so it last and protects all.

After a society is formed through and with the laws of nature, the sovereign over the social contract gains certain rights. When a covenant is formed, each man who enters into the covenant agrees to obey the sovereign as if the sovereign speaks for all the members of the nation. Citizens must obey their sovereign whether they chose him or not and whether they agree with him or not. The sovereign is the physical embodiment of the covenant and the entire nation and will act as though they represent every single man in the covenant. Hobbes endorses the

leadership of a single monarch or a leviathan, but he also states that the sovereign does not necessarily take this form in order to be respected as the whole nation and to rule as a sovereign.

The sovereign can take the form of a single man or an assembly of men, and either form that the sovereign takes will be respected by the people because they willingly entered into the covenant and agreed to be ruled by the sovereign. Hobbes states,

“A Common-wealth is said to be Instituted, when a Multitude of men do Agree, and Covenant, every one, with every one, that to whatsoever Man, of Assembly of Men, shall be given by the major part, the Right to Present the Person of them all, (that is to say, to be their Representative;) every one, as well he that Voted for it, as he that Voted against it, shall Authorise all the Actions and Judgements, of that Man or Assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to live peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men.” (121)

Because the sovereign is the embodiment of the nation, he is protected by certain rights through the covenant.

The first right that the sovereign enjoys is that the people are not justified in changing regimes after the covenant has been created without consent from the sovereign. Because they have already entered into a contract with the sovereign, it is unlawful and unjust to create another contract. Hobbes explains,

“And consequently, they that have already instituted a Commonwealth, being thereby bound by covenant to own the actions and judgements of one, cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other, in anything whatsoever, without his permission. And therefore, they that are subjects to a monarch cannot without his leave cast off monarchy and return to the confusion of a disunited multitude; nor transfer their person from him that beareth it to another man, other assembly of men…” (122)

Nations can change their regime type and their sovereign so long as the sovereign consents to the change. Men cannot be part of more than one covenant at a time. Men could not even make a covenant with God while they are already bound to a covenant with a sovereign were God

mortal; however, men do make this covenant with God because God does not have a physical embodiment and therefore a covenant cannot be truly made with Him. This is how men are able to have both nation and religion. Men cannot form a covenant with more than one man or sovereign at a time. Leaving a covenant would require entering into another to break the original, and therefore men cannot break the original because, no matter how brief the period of time, he would be part of two covenants which is not possible. The second right of sovereigns is that no subject can be freed from their subjection to the sovereign. The people make a covenant with the sovereign, but the sovereign does not return the favor. This one-sided covenant of gifting rights to their sovereign traps the citizen into the contract they made with the sovereign. The imbalance of the covenant means that the covenant is inescapable. The sovereign does not make a covenant with his citizens because it would be impossible. Hobbes states,

“Secondly, Because the Right of bearing the Person of them all, is given to him they make Soveraigne, by Covenant onely of one to another, and not of him to any of them; there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequesntly non of his Subjects, by anypretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection.” (122)

The sovereign cannot make a covenant with each individual in a nation because once a second covenant is made, the first covenant is voided making it impossible to hold more than one covenant at once meaning the sovereign could not hold a contract with more than one subject at a time. Holding a covenant with only one subject would be pointless and the sovereign would never be able to hold power and society would never be created. Creating a covenant with the whole of the people is also impossible as the whole of the people does not exist until the sovereign is already in power. The people are not one people until the sovereign is established.

Until that moment, the people are merely individuals in the state of nature. Making covenants with a people is impossible until they are one people but making covenants with several

individuals is also impossible. This makes it impossible to have any sort covenant from the sovereign to the people; therefore, the people singularly make the covenant with the sovereign and the covenant is unbreakable. Within a contract, the people must obey, and it is unjust to be against the sovereign. Hobbes states, “And whether he be of the congregation or not, and whether his consent be asked or not, he must either submit to their decrees or be left in the condition of war he was in before…” (123). One cannot benefit from living under a sovereign while arguing against the sovereign. Disagreement with the sovereign must never happen, and even if one feels as though the sovereign has done something wrong, he must remain silent about this or be forced back into the state of nature and war. A subject cannot accuse the sovereign of wrong doing because a sovereign’s fourth right is that he is never wrong. A sovereign represents the subjects, so the subjects can never justly accuse the sovereign, or they will be accusing themselves which is impossible. Hobbes continues, “Fourthly, because every Subject is by this

Institution Author of all the Actions, and Judgements of the Soveraigne Instituted; it followes, that whatsoever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his Subjects; not ought he to be by any of them accused of Injustice” (124). When an individual enters into a social contract with a sovereign, he is agreeing that the sovereign will represent his best interest, and in turn, he will be subservient to the sovereign. Because the sovereign has full authority to determine laws and regulations for all individuals who entered the covenant, he can cause no injury to his subjects.

Subjects consent to the rule of the sovereign and therefore are authors of all the actions and judgements of the sovereign. With this in mind, no subject may accuse the sovereign of injustice because he has consented to the rule by joining the covenant. The fifth right of the sovereign is that, “Fifthly, and consequently to that which was sayd last, no man that hath Soveraign power can justly be put to death, or otherwise in any manner by his Subjects punished. For seeing every

Subject is Author of the actions of his Soveraigne; he punisheth another, for the actions committed by himselfe” (124). Because no man can accuse his sovereign of injustice, the sovereign cannot be punished for any actions he commits. The subjects consent to the sovereign’s actions by joining a covenant, so they may not punish the sovereign for actions that were agreed upon. It is impossible for the sovereign to be accused of committing an injustice, and one cannot be punished for a crime that they have not even been accused of committing; therefore, a sovereign cannot be punished for any action he takes. Hobbes continues to the sixth right of the sovereign by stating,

“And because the End of this Institution, is the Peace and Defence of them all; and whosoever has right to the End, has right to the Means; it belongeth of Right, to whatsoever Man, or Assembly that hath the Soveraignty, to be Judge both of the meanes of Peace and Defence; and also of the hinderances, and disturbances of the same; and to do whatsoever he shall think necessary to be done, both before hand, for the preserving of Peace and Security, by prevention of Discord at home, and Hostility from abroad; and, when Peace and Security are lost, for the recovery of the same. And therefore, Sixtly, it is anneced 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, in speaking to Multitudes of people; and who shall examine the Doctrines of all bookes before they be published.” (124)

The reason men join into covenants under the rule of a sovereign is to find peace from the state of war. Once a covenant is formed, the right to determine how this peace is achieved belongs solely with the sovereign. A single individual no longer has the right to make decisions about defense in order to achieve peace once they sign into a covenant. The sovereign has the right to make all decisions pertaining to peace including doctrines, defense, and what the subjects are to know about such matters. To protect the peace, the sovereign is the one and only decision maker.

Hobbes continued to the seventh law by stating, “Seventhly, is annexed to the Soveraigntie, the whole power of Prescribing the Rules, whereby every man may know, what Goods he may 28

enjoy, and what Actions he may doe, without being molested by any of his fellow Subjects: And this is it men call Propriety” (125). The sovereign has the right to make any and all laws pertaining to his people and his land. These laws may dictate every aspect of life for the subjects, but that is not required. The goal of entering into a covenant is to protect the peace and the sovereign decides how the peace is kept. If the sovereign believes that peace may only be kept though the careful guarding of individual freedoms, then he has the power to enforce laws that will keep the peace, even if the subjects do not get to enjoy certain individual freedoms such as religion. The eighth right is stated as, “Eightly, is annexed to the Soveraigntie, the Right of

Judicature; that is to say, of hearing and deciding all Controversies, which may arise concerning

Law, either Civill, or Naturall, or concerning Fact” (125). The sovereign is the only one who has the right to determine the disputes of law, civil causes, natural causes, or facts. This gives the sovereign final say in all judicial cases. Again, this is in an effort to preserve the peace within and of the nation. If someone else were making the determinations and they were contradictory to the sovereign’s will, then the peace of the nation would have been broken. On the matters of peace outside of one single nation, Hobbes states, “Ninthly, is annexed to the Soveraignty, the

Right of making Warre, and Peace with other Nations, and Common-wealths; that is to say, of

Judging when it is for the publique good, and how great forces are to be assembled, armed, and payd for that end; and to levy mony upon the Subjects, to defray the exprnces thereof” (126).

When it comes to the defense of the subjects and land in the covenant, the sovereign makes the decisions as to when to make peace and when to make war. This war, if waged, would be under the direction and discretion of the sovereign alone. He would be the one levying taxes for the war and collecting the men to fight the war. The subjects must obey the orders of the sovereign even if they do not agree with the war or want to pay for it with their taxes or their lives. The

individuals agreed to the covenant so that the sovereign would protect them in times of war meaning that the sovereign is the only person who is able to create and wage war. As to the tenth right, Hobbes states, “Tenthly, is annexed to the Soveraignty, the choosing of all Counsellours,

Ministers, Magistrates, and Officers, both in Peace and War” (126). The tenth right of the sovereign is to choose the individuals who work for him. These persons are advisors and see that the will of the sovereign is fulfilled. In order that these positions are filled with people who will help the sovereign, the sovereign is in charge of choosing these trusted people. This ensures that they will be willing to fulfill the sovereign’s will. The sovereign is to fill these positions in peace as well as war because the goal of the will of the sovereign is to protect his subjects in times of war and peace meaning that the sovereign needs to surround himself with loyal people at all times. Hobbes states,

“Eleventhly, to the Soveraign is committed the Power of Rewarding with rishes, or honour; and of Punishing with corporall, or pecuniary punishment, or with ignominy every Subject according to the Law he hath formerly made; or if ther be no Law made, according as he shall judge most to conduce to the encouraging of men to serve the Common-wealth, or determining of them from soind dis-service to the same.” (126)

The sovereign is in charge of seeing that his laws are followed as he wrote them in to ensure that the peace in the nation remains. The sovereign is to make the subjects serve the common wealth and therefore he must deal out rewards and punishments as necessary to inspire the subjects to serve his will as the best course of action for their own protection. When individuals see that the actions contrary to the sovereign’s laws are punished and those actions in accordance are praised, he is much more willing to follow all laws even if he does not agree with a stated law. To end the list of rights, Hobbes states,

“Lastly, considering what values men are naturally apt to set upon themselves; what respect they look for from others; and how little they value other men; from whence continually arise amongst them, 30

Emulation, Quarrelles, Factions, and at last Warre, to the destroying of one another, and diminuation of their strength against a Common Enemy; It is necessary that there be Lawes of Honour, and a publique rate of the worth of such men as have deserved, or are able to deserve well of the Common-wealth… To the Soveraign therefore it belongeth also to give titles of Honour; and to appoint what Order of place, and dignity, each man shall hold; and what signes of respect, in publique or private meetings, they shall give to one another.” (126)

Men are naturally set against each other. This controversy is what make social contracts necessary in the first place to take men out of the state of nature. It is up to the sovereign to regulate how men behave as to avoid these issues. If the sovereign were to not regulate how men interacted, the entering into a social contract would be unnecessary and unhelpful as the state of war would remain amongst individuals even within a society. This right allows the sovereign to govern as to what is acceptable and honorable behavior and what cannot be tolerated by society.

These titles of honor and dignity that are given to men by the sovereign are necessary for the protection of individuals from other individuals.

The rights that Hobbes explains of the sovereign are natural to sovereignty. Whether the role of sovereign is filled with one man or with several, these rights are given to them and are inalienable. “These are the Rights, which make the Essence of Soveraignty; and which are the markes, whereby a man may discern in what Man, or Assembly of men, the Soveraign Power is places, and resideth. For these are incommunicable, and inseparable” (127). These laws are not given to the sovereign, rather they are innate in the role of sovereign and can never be separated.

The sovereign embodies the will of the individuals who have agreed to become subjects to protect themselves from the state of war and this creates the rights for the sovereign. Hobbes explains that these rights do not need to be held by the same person in order to belong to the sovereign. Some countries may decide to split these rights among several men or even several bodies of men. America for example has taken these rights and divided them among three 31

branches of government to balance each other. On the other hand, some nations such as North

Korea or monarchies of the past have chosen to leave all the rights with a single sovereign.

Hobbes makes no distinction as to which model of governing is superior, but however the sovereign is designed, the sovereign is built with these rights and they cannot be removed.

These rights given to the sovereign create the state of nature among countries. When the sovereign of each covenant is given the right to be wholly in charge of the happenings of his people and territory, then there is no authority above that of the sovereign. This is fine within each covenant individually, but when several sovereigns live in the world together, there is no proper authority above them all meaning that they are in the state of nature. No sovereign has any say over the others and there is no justice between nations because they have not formed a covenant. The rights reserved for the sovereign alone has caused the international state of nature because no sovereign has more power or rights than the others. By several different groups of people forming covenants, a new state of nature was created.

Section Three:

Individual State of Nature vs. International State of Nature

The state of nature among individuals seems rather analogous to the state of nature among nations; however, there are many differences between how nations and individuals interact. The main difference is that nations do not have the bodily weakness of individuals.

Humans are equal in body because even the strongest man must sleep, and therefore can be bested by the weakest man. Nations do not sleep. Nations are guarded at all times. Without this inherent weakness of sleep, strong nations will remain strong nations and cannot be bested by weak nations. This makes nations unequal in physical force. Nations also have a much longer lifespan than individuals. A nation can last several generations and maintain their national character the entire time. An individual can live for about eighty years, and much less than that in the state of nature. This means that there is a change in all human kind about every twenty years. Nations have a natural lifespan of centuries. With a longer lifespan, nations are able to develop much more stability. They can raise and maintain security throughout the entire nation and possibly even in other nations. When a person dies, their monetary goods can be passed down to a living relative or given or taken away by others, but when a nation dies, the people remain in the same territory and must rebuild a nation with the leftovers of the former. Without the weaknesses natural to the human body, nations are able to have a larger presence in the state of nature making it much less likely for them to join into a civil society and give up their rights and sovereignty.

Countries are naturally less equal than individuals. Some are bigger, some are older, some are more powerful, some have atomic weapons, and some barely survive. They all have slightly different types of government and this makes them simply unequal. Individuals are each confined to a single human body. This makes them equal because even though individuals vary in strength and intelligence, they are still in roughly the same vessel with the same weaknesses

such as sleep and experience. When a country has more land than another or is richer and more powerful, it has a great advantage. A small nation would not be able to exploit a natural weakness of a nation such as the time a human body requires to sleep because there are no natural weaknesses of a nation. A country does not sleep, so their brute strength cannot be worked around and rather must be faced head on by a smaller, weaker nation if the weaker nation so desired to attack. Nations are not equal in intelligence either. Individuals gain knowledge from their environment and experience, but then men come together and stabilize their survival in society they are able to spend time learning and expanding their minds. Exiting the state of nature creates the stability necessary to gain knowledge. Nations contain several of these learned individuals and now the smartest individuals are able to come together and produce great things within a nation or internationally. Some nations are blessed with more of these learned individuals than others, and some nations have devoted more time and resources to educating their population and producing more learned people. Nations barely surviving do not have the resources to ensure their population is educated, as they focus on ensuring their population is fed.

This gives these smarter, more developed nations a great advantage over the nations without individuals who have cultivated their minds. This power of mind translates to power of strength through technology and economy. Nations also differ in the way the government is constructed.

This makes some nations weaker and some stronger. Military states may have a strong fighting force, but they do not necessarily excel in commercial enterprises. This gives them not only a strength, but also a weakness. It is impossible for a nation to be perfect in every aspect, yet some advance much faster and better than others. Nations are inherently unequal as some are simply stronger than others.

Nations and individuals share the same reasons for turning to violence; competition, diffidence, and glory. This competition that nations face is generally over territory which is similar to individuals in the state of nature who compete over resources and property, but on a much larger scale. Nations naturally try to expand to gain more influence in the world. Influence can be in the form of land, people, or money, but no matter how a country expands, it will gain them influence in the world. This natural desire to expand was used and abused in past eras of human history, and although land expansion has mostly ended, countries still conquer each other in different ways. Expansion led to great and vast empires, like the Romans, the British, and the

Mongolians. Although these empires took several different forms and ruled their people in very different manners, they all followed the drive to expand. This expansion is natural as nations and peoples have and will always want to expand and obtain more. When humans first developed, they began exploring and expanding with their tribes. Even to this day when the opportunity to expand is presented, a nation will do its best to take advantage of the opportunity. Manifest destiny is a modern example from America itself. When the opportunity for more land was seen, there was almost no time before America spread its way from east to west. Expansion has more or less halted in the past century. The halting of this natural process is artificial. Nations recognize the sovereignty of the others and generally accept that nations own their own areas.

Conquests are a rarity in the modern age. This is due to a new type of fear. Because the nations have to form alliances and have all become relatively strong because of their reliance on others, nations will not normally be invaded and conquered. This means the uneasy peace of non- invasion is artificially constructed but an effective way to maintain national sovereignty while achieving peace internationally. Treaties are not an exit from the state of nature, just a means in controlling the savagery of the state of nature.

The natural desire to expand leads to violence and war as conquest requires the fighting and dying of many men, not just one as the individual in the state of nature. When a nation does attack for the sake of conquest, the nation that is being invaded will use violence as defense.

Without this, one strong nation would be able to plow down the other nations and gain control of the entire world. The use of defensive force can be used even before a nation physically attacks another. This concept of preemptive defense is commonly used in the current state of international affairs. Even if a nation strikes preemptively, it is defense because the nation has nothing to gain from the attack aside from safety. If there were another reason to attack, it would be considered conquest or glory, but preemptive defense does not gain a nation anything beyond basic security. The final cause for violence, in both individuals and nations, is vainglory. This reason for violence is common because people naturally want to protect not only their physical bodies, but also their reputations. Nations build up their national character and will do anything they can to protect it and maintain how people look at them. Nations suffer from vainglory the same as individuals. This manifests as national character and is irrational according to Hobbes as its vainglorious and is the reason some nations don’t survive. Vainglory squashes the instincts of survival. If a nation needs help, it should be able to set their pride aside to join another country for survival. In past centuries there were many more nations, and each was much smaller. Most modern European nations were at one point several tiny kingdoms. These kingdoms ended up joining together to become a larger, stronger nation. This joining may have happened through one of the kingdoms taking over the others or through an alliance that mixed the nations by forcing them to rely on each other. Either of these methods of joining has led to bigger, more powerful nations. If these nations had put up a significant fight to keep their national character independent when it was necessary to join for the sake of survival, Hobbes would categorize this

as vainglory. Vainglory is false and irrational. It is rational for a nation to have pride and glory in itself, but when survival is at stake, it is vainglorious and irrational to place the character and pride over basic survival. It is impossible to have true glory in a nation that no longer exists, which is why it is important to place survival above vainglory. True glory can easily turn to vainglory when a nation or person acts irrationally for the sake of their survival. Even if a nation hates another, their vainglory in their puny rivalry should be set aside if there is a greater threat to their survival on the horizon. This is evident with individuals as no individual can resist the joining into a society on the basis of glory if they wish to survive. The nations are an expansion of this relationship between individuals.

Hobbes focuses on the individuals in the state of nature and how they interact, but many of these problems and solutions could be relevant when speaking about nations and international relations. When individuals or nations are not under a common power there are no common laws and therefore no justice. There is no justice in the state of nature and there is no justice internationally. This is because there is no impartial judge to end conflicts without violence.

Hobbes states, “For in the condition of Nature, where every man is Judge, there is no place for

Accusation: and in the Civill State, the Accusation is followed with Punishment; which being

Force, a man is not obliged not to resist” (98). Without this judge and covenant in place, there can be no justice. Hobbes states, “And in this law of Nature, consisteth the Fountain and

Originall of Justice. For where no Covenant hath proceded, there hath no Right been transferred, and every man has right to every thing; and consequently, no action can be Unjust. But when a

Covenant is made, then to break it is Unjust” (100). Since countries operate independently and are not in a covenant that describes justice between them, there is no justice between nations. If a nation commits an action against another nation that is seen as unjust, there is no option to right

the wrong other than going to war since there was no definition of justice agreed upon by a covenant and there is no judge to decide what is just and execute a punishment accordingly. This leaves interactions between nations in the state of nature and therefore the state of war. This could be solved by nations creating and entering into a contract with each other. However, just like contracts with individuals, entering into a contract would require giving up rights and sovereignty for a nation. Sometimes countries choose to enter into these contracts with each other through deals like treaties. This creates justice between the nations because breaking the agreement would be unjust. An agreement among individuals or nations creates justice because if broken, the nations are released from the treaty, but they do not have the full force that a covenant holds. Treaties are unlike the covenants Hobbes’ requires for the state of nature to cease because very little sovereignty is forfeited and the nations to not join together. They remain independent and distinct while agreeing to aid each other. These treaties and deals do take away a small part of the nation’s sovereignty, but nations only give up that small amount of control for a deal they believe is more important than having total sovereignty. This is the same choice individuals make. Individuals can make agreements and treaties with other individuals in the state of nature, but they are weak. Treaties made are not to end the state of nature, but rather just cushion it instead. Individuals are not as strong or enduring as nations, so the treaties are not enough to preserve life. For this reason, individuals give up more rights for more protection by entering into a covenant with a sovereign. The escape from the state of nature is generally reason enough to give up some rights for individuals, but the benefit of giving up rights to a sovereign is not so great for a nation that they are willing to agree to any more than a treaty.

These covenants that nations enter into must be of an existential necessity because men do not like working with other men, just as nations do not like working with other nations.

Hobbes states,

“Againe, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great deale of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over- awe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him, at the same rate he sets upon himselfe: And upon all signes of contempt, or undervaluing, naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet, is far enough to make them destroy each other,) to extort a greater value from his condemners, by damage; and from others, by the example.” (88)

Men only keep company with others if they get something out of it. Because the natural state of man is the state of war, it is dangerous to maintain relationships. This is the same with nations. If a nation feels that it is more beneficial than dangerous to create a relationship with another nation, then they can enter into a covenant and keep relations with the other nation. However, even a friendly nation poses a threat to others when kept in company because there is no overarching power to make sure everyone behaves themselves. Nations like to operate by themselves. It is safer and it is easier. Nations that can produce enough food and goods for their people would prefer isolation if it were not for capitalism. Capitalism is the new form of conquest. Nations do not invade each other much anymore with physical force. This has many explanations such as artificial agreements that nations control the land and people within their own borders, and that physical invasion is costly in money and bodies. The new conquest is trade. Nations with better economies and more successful trade are more powerful on the world stage. Instead of taking over other nations and lands, countries are turning to taking over new markets and means of production. This is nonviolent and a reason to avoid physical war because war would disrupt trade routes leading to a loss for the nations involved as well as neutral neighboring nations. This is a way to conquer others while still striving for and maintaining 40

peace. International trade and money gain are strong forces that creates a nonviolent venue for nations to interact. Without the influence of money, or goods from another nation, countries that are self-sufficient would remain self-sufficient within their own borders because it would be safer than entering into agreements with other nations.

Unlike individuals, nations can survive alone. Once a nation forms, the individuals can rely on each other for their needs making it possible to do more than simply survive. Successful nations do not need to rely on any other nation for bare minimum survival. Commerce and negotiation with other nations may increase quality of life, but they are unnecessary to remain a nation. This means that unlike individuals, nations can stay in the state of war between each other indefinitely. There is nothing forcing nations to form an international covenant, as the state of war between nations is much milder. Nations have to interact at their boarders where the two nations meet, but they do not need to agree to a covenant to keep that boarder intact. The fear of repercussions when the border is breached is enough to keep both nations at bay. The fear that nations feel when they face each other is what Hobbes claims to keep nations from attacking for conquest.

Fear in the international state of nature is much milder than the fear in the individual state of nature. It is rare that a nation faces an existential threat like an individual does. When a human faces any threat, the possible consequences will always involve losing one’s life. This is not the case when it comes to countries. When a country faces a threat, even if the nation ends, there people are still in the region and have the customs and mores of the deceased nation. The nation is not wiped from existence like a human would be. This mild fear is what makes the state of nature sustainable for centuries. If all the nations of the world were to face some existential threat that would make all nations dissolve, then they may consider joining into a covenant, and

if they were not vainglorious, they would create a covenant quickly and easily. Nations do not individually face great threats. There is no threat big enough to force nations to work together.

When there is a threat that a nation doesn’t believe it can handle on its own, it will make a treaty or alliance with another nation, but this is not as binding as a covenant and requires only mild sacrifice of rights. The fear is not great enough to force nations to leave the state of nature entirely.

Nations are less affected by the state of war. Individuals exit the state of nature because they can focus on nothing other than survival in the state of war; nations, however, do not have this issue. Hobbes explains that in the state of war life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short and when individuals are in the state of war, they can no longer pay attention to the things not necessary to survival such as industry or trade. He then continues to say,

“But though there had never been any time, wherein particular men were in a condition of warre one against another; yet in all times, Kings, and Persons of Soveraigne authority, because of their Independency, are in continuall jealousies, and in the state and posture of Gladiators; having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their Forts, Garrisons, and Gins upon the Frontiers of their Kingdomes; and continuall Spyes upon their neighbours, which is a posture of War. But because they uphold thereby, the Industry of their Subjects; there does not follow from it, that misery, which accompanies the Liberty of particular men.” (90)

Nations are able to maintain a state of war. They can stay in this state since they can survive and create industry and trade at the same time. War can sometimes put a hinderance on this with moves like trade embargos, but even with embargos on trade, if a nation is self- sufficient it will not need to rely on the trade from other nations. Because nations are created and have vast numbers of people, some can work for the state as soldiers while others remain focused on art, literature, trade, and economics. Individuals do not have this luxury and the state of war will destroy them. Life for nations, unlike individuals, is not solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and

short. Life may be solitary for a nation, but contrary to individuals this is desirable. Nations want to be able to care for themselves and not reliant on others. Life for a nation could be poor and nasty, but this is not because of the state of nature. It is because of other, internal factors such as strife in the country or a vainglorious sovereign. Some nations are incredibly rich and refined.

Poor and nasty are not hard and fast rules for nations as it is with individuals. A short life for a nation is a long life for an individual making this assertation false for nations compared to individuals as well. Life as a nation may be brutish, but because of national character and not because it resides within the state of nature.

Section Four:

Why there is no Global Sovereign

Nations maintain their independence even in the state of war. This is because the international state of war is mild and sustainable unlike the state of nature for individuals.

Hobbes explains,

“So in States, and Common-wealths not dependent on one another, every Common-wealth, (not every man) has an absolute Liberty, to do what it shall judge (that is to say, what that Man, or Assembly that represent it, shall judge) most conducing to their benefit. But withal, they live in the condition of a perpetual war, and upon the confines of battel, with their frontiers armed, and canons planted against their neighbors round about.” (149)

Nations will not give up their sovereignty for anything less than the fear that they will be eliminated. The nation must face the extinction of their homeland, their people, and their culture as a whole to necessitate entering into a contract to exit the state of war. Even when faced with a threat of this magnitude, a nation may still choose elimination over subordination to another nation on the grounds of vainglory. A nation and its people have pride in their nation and because of this they may be too proud to ask another nation for help when in danger to keep their reputation. This will lead to their elimination because vainglory is false and corrupting. Just as a man filled with vainglory would be killed for not giving up his false glory and entering into a contract, so will a nation. If the threat of extinction is great enough, then the differences nations have, whether it be culture, language, or governing structure, will not matter, and the nations will merge under one sovereign to protect themselves.

As the world stands now, there is no need for an international sovereign. No country feels threatened enough to entirely merge with another for its own protection. Even weak nations feel secure in themselves from external threats. Nations have created treaties amongst themselves in order to be stronger without giving up sovereignty or joining another nation entirely. Because these nations feel secure enough in their own boarders and with their alliances, they do not feel the need to create a greater order for their own protection. 45

The driving factor that forces men out of the state of nature is fear. They fear each other so much that they are willing to give up their rights to be more secure under the leadership of a sovereign. This fear is an existential fear. A person will not give up their own sovereignty if they do not believe that they will survive on their own. The existential fear is felt among all individuals in a society equally which creates the civil society and convinces individuals to join said society. Nations do not experience this fear universally. Because this fear is not felt, the state of war is too mild to necessitate the creation of a world order to exit the state of nature.

When a country feels threatened it will create an alliance with other, stronger nations to protect itself. This happens regularly and is becoming increasingly common as the world becomes increasingly interdependent. A great example is the European Union. The European Union was established to maintain peace in Europe, a main function of the first law of nature according to

Hobbes. Europe is a continent that contains several small countries in a relatively small area.

These nations have different languages and cultures which can cause incredible strife and disastrous wars. A single European nation is small and relatively weak when operating alone. A

European nation does not fear obliteration by the other small, weak nations, but they do fear large nations in other parts of the world. The European Union is mainly focused on the economic health of these small nations, but commerce is a new international battleground that acts the same as the state of war and should be treated the same. This European fear of outside threats is an existential fear which drives the creation of the EU and the exit of these nations from the full state of war. They remain in a quasi-state of nature since they did not agree to give all their rights of sovereignty to one sovereign, but rather work as a group for safety. This is because the external threat to the European nations is present but not pressing. Were the threat great enough, the nations would either form an international government with an assembly to represent each

nation or allow one man or one government to rule over them all. This threat would have to be a threat to the very existence of each nation. This principle of existential fear controls all nations and why they have not exited the state of nature to be under one sovereign. As of now, there is no threat that scares nations enough to give up their own sovereignty, but if a threat of this magnitude were to be felt, then a world government would be absolutely necessary to the survival of the nations and the world. This global existential threat sounds like science fiction, and in theory it could be, but the existing nations could create the same hostilities that would force the others to form an international sovereign. If one nation were to become incredibly powerful and threatening, other nations would feel the need to join forces in order to protect themselves. In turn, the original aggressor may incorporate smaller nations to heighten its power if it felt the other coalition was too powerful. This trend could continue until the world consisted of two powerful nations fighting head on for who is the strongest. The gaining of nations up to this point would be peaceful and willing, but once it was only two competing nations, then there would be no choice but all-out war if one were to take over the other because there would be no reason for them to join together otherwise. The closest the world came to developing this dynamic was during the Cold War. The Soviet Union and the United States were the nuclear powerhouses of the world. Other nations, in order to protect themselves, joined one side or the other. If the conflict had continued and it became evident that protection would come at the cost of lost sovereignty and a treaty would not be enough of a guarantee of safety, then the world would have morphed into two giant nations going head to head at each other for control over the world. Luckily, the conflict ended before this scenario had a chance to accumulate. It is only in extreme circumstances that nations feel the need to join an international governing body in totality. Nations join treaties and unions like the United Nations for protection, but very little

sovereignty is given up for their safety. The state of war does not affect nations like it affects individuals because it is a much milder form of the state of war. Without the existential dread individuals experience, a contract with other nations is unnecessary and unwise.

If a world order were to be created, it would be one of two types of orders that can blossom from the state of war. Men enter into contracts with rulers for their own protection.

These covenants form into countries that are independent and sovereign in their own right. These nations could form together to create their own covenant which would allow the nations to exit the state of nature and create a world order. If a world order were to exist in the world today, then this would be the form it would take. Nations have tried to form organizations for this purpose such as the League of Nations, but these organizations require that nations give up some of their sovereignty. This is a requirement that mirrors the covenants of individuals, as individuals have to give up some of their own rights so that they can exit the state of nature.

Nations would need to give up some of their sovereignty and rights to exit the state of war and create world peace, but no ruler is willing to take this crucial step. A sovereign ruler will never be willing to give up their power over their own nation simply for the sake of peace, instead they would have to feel great fear. This world order brings up several other issues as well. Who would be in charge of the world organization? If there was to be a singular ruler, a leviathan, then each nation would compete for the world leader to be from their own nation, and if the leader was not from their own nations or perhaps a rival nation, then the country would not respect the ruler or the laws that would be made. If each nation were to send a representative and have the world government take the form of a republic, then nothing would be accomplished because the nations are so diverse with different needs and mores. The creation of a government made up of the governments of the world is the only way that a world order could be created with the world as it

is now, but the creation of a true world government is impossible and would not be functional in the real world. It is the most realistic option with no possibility of ever existing.

The second type of world order is completely hypothetical, but it would have the best chance at working in the real world. The only way a truly global government would have a chance of working would be if each individual exited the state of nature by making a covenant with the same ruler. Each individual on the face of the earth would have the same ruler and would be a part of the same nation. This would be a world order that would work because there would be no other rulers or nations to cause conflict. The reasons for violence would disappear at an international scale because there would be no other nations who would cause problems. The state of nature would vanish completely. The peoples and territories under the one nation would be diverse and would have different needs, but this could be combatted by allowing regions to establish a federal system and take care of the affairs in their region while leading under the umbrella of the whole nation. The trade and commerce amongst the regions would be regulated by the singular ruler as well as travel and regional conflicts. The national ruler would act as a judge when conflicts arose between difference regions allowing for justice to exist over the entire world. Hobbes states that justice can only be established through a covenant and having a covenant among all the people of the world and a single ruler is the only way to ensure each person adheres to the same form and understanding of justice. Although this is the only world order that could possibly eliminate the state of nature, it will never exist. Humans did not originate in the same spot on the globe. If humanity had begun in the same global origin, they could have established one civilization and government and spread the human race to other places and continents while maintaining the same government because it would have only been one ruler and one people spreading the human race. However, this is not how humanity was

created. Humans developed in pockets all around the globe. Humans may have the same general beginning point, but because of the human development, hominins were nomadic. They took their families and tribes and traveled all over the globe. Over thousands of years and thousands of waves of humans leaving their origin point, pockets of humans sprung up all around the globe.

These pockets joined together and made covenants and civil societies. Some advanced farther than others, some fizzled out, some remain to this day, but because these small pockets developed individually, the chance for humans to create one great society was crushed before it was a known thought. The world that lives under one ruler could have existed, but circumstances of human evolution did not allow for this to happen. A true world order cannot exist. Peoples internationally cannot exit the state of nature and live together in true peace as Hobbes prescribes, but they can make it easier to coexist.

Without the same level of fear that individuals feel in the state of nature, nations have no reason to exit the state of nature. The intense fear for one’s life is what creates the necessity for a civil society, but when that that fear is lessened, civil society is more of an inconvenience than an aid for survival. No individual or nation is going to give up their rights or sovereignty for any reason less than absolute necessity for survival. Because one must give up rights to enter into a covenant, nations of the world will not do this unless they feel an incredible amount of fear from an external force. The fear in the state of nature on an international level is simply milder which makes the drive to join a covenant cease to exist.

Conclusion:

Nations remain in the state of nature because there is not a threat big enough to force nations to join into a covenant. Hobbes explains that the fear in the state of nature as the driving force for people to join societies. This intense fear is not present in the only remaining state of nature, between nations. Because this fear is not so intense, nations prefer to stay in the state of nature with their full rights and sovereignty rather than forming a covenant in which they would have to submit to another, higher sovereign. In a case that is not absolutely necessary for survival, no individual or nation would agree to giving up their freedoms.

The state of nature is a brutal place to live. Men are killing each other for basic resources enough to live. This state no longer exists except in rare cases when people must survive the wilderness and in the international realm. The states of nature that spring up in survival circumstances are resolved quickly, but the international state of nature endures because it is a much milder state of nature than the individual state of nature.

When an individual is in the state of nature, they must focus all their energy on survival.

They will not live long and choose to join covenants for safety as soon as possible. The state of nature produces extreme fear for individuals. They know that they cannot survive without the help of others because humans are all naturally equal. In body, mind, and hope men are equal in the state of nature. Human bodies all have the same weaknesses, intelligence is simply a product of experience, and all men hope to live as long as possible. These conditions are equalizing, and inequality only appears among individuals once they enter society. Civil society is the safest place for individuals to exist, so they create covenants as quickly as possible. Individuals give some of their rights over to a sovereign in exchange for protection. They fear the other individuals in the state of nature so much that they are willing to allow a sovereign to make decisions for them and have the exclusive right to violence on behalf of their people.

Hobbes outlines nineteen laws of nature that are easily found through reason and explain the drive for individuals to join a covenant, how to form a covenant, and how to remain in a covenant. These are important for explaining to men how to live together since men naturally do not want to be with each other. Hobbes also outlines the rights reserved for the sovereign because he is not just another individual. The sovereign is reserved the rights to do what is deemed necessary for the survival of his people and his nation. This is what creates the international state of nature because all sovereigns are reserved these rights which makes no one the head of all sovereigns and ensures that there can be no covenant between sovereigns while they remain sovereign to their own nation. Were the sovereigns not allowed these rights, nations would quickly dissolve and people would be plunged back into a state of nature. The state of nature between nations is milder and safer for the entire world.

Nations can continue to thrive in areas such as art and infrastructure even while engaged in war in the state of nature. This is not possible for individuals as all their attention and effort needs to be focused on survival because all individuals are at war with each other in the state of nature. Nations, on the other hand, are rarely at war with all other nations. Countries will go to war with specific nations while others are left out of the war. Even when an all-out war is being fought, a nation has many different people, so some can go and fight the war while others stay home and keep the nation running. Countries can remain in a state of war because not all of the energy has to be focused on pure survival since there are people to take care of the home front and the actual fighting. A perpetual state of war is not a death sentence for a nation. Nations do not behave like individuals in the state of nature.

There are two possibilities for the organization of a world government were nations to decide the state of nature was too dangerous. Either all the sovereigns could come together and

form a new global council, or all the peoples of the world could form a covenant with a single sovereign for the entire world. Neither of these visions of a world government will come to fruition without the fear of an external force making an appearance on the world stage. Until that point, nations will remain in their mild state of nature with their full rights and sovereignty, as it is safer for nations to remain at war than it is for them to join completely at this point in history.

Nations enjoy their freedom of being independent.

The state of nature among countries is sustainable because it is mild compared to that of individuals. Nations come together for some instances of defense and economic growth, but these cases still allow for nations to completely self sovereign. It would take much greater fear than there is in the world to make nations ban together. This fear may be felt in the distant future, but until that time, nations will remain in their own state of nature.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Hobbes: "Leviathan". Edited by Richard Tuck, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Author’s Biography

Brianna Sargent was born in Cheyenne, Wyoming on March 31, 1997. She grew up in

Cheyenne, Wyoming, graduating from Central High School in 2015. At Ashland University, Bri is majoring in political science, international political studies, and French with a minor in ethics.

She is a member of the Honors Program, the Ashbrook Scholar Program, and the Peace Scholar

Program for the Ashland Center for Nonviolence. She is President of Alexander Hamilton

Society and French Club and runs the Title IX Student Sub-Committee.

Upon graduation, Brianna plans to find a full-time job in the political field in Washington

D.C.