Eleventhly...

Hobbes's theories have been weighing on my mind since the reading assignment began.  Not only does my modern, democratic mind butt against this monarchical apology (and must often remind myself we consider Hobbes simply for learned perspective) but I am troubled by, what I perceive to be, a particular contradiction in his philosophy.  He states on page 106: "...the introduction of that restraint upon themselves in which we see them live in commonwealths is the foresight of their own preservation..."  He wishes to create a system where people willingly submit to authority, and forfeit certain freedoms, in exchange for order and justice.  Such an arrangement should be lucrative to all parties but especially to the people willingly submitting to a commonwealth, because they are at an inherent disadvantage by the release of their liberties.  The conflicting argument arises on page 215 where he details the notion of "seditious documents" being detrimental to a commonwealth.  "I cannot imagine how anything can be more prejudicial to a monarchy than the allowing of such books to be publicly read".  This fear of alien influence smacks of totalitarian austerity.  I struggle to imagine any individual who would willingly submit to an authority so far-reaching that their very ideas are subject to control, no matter how indirect.  However, I digress in favour of another troubling implication of this embargo of foreign ideas; Hobbes fears that the commonwealth would perceive the governments of the Greeks (for example) to be indelibly superior and therefore the idea of rebellion would spread among them.  Reading this does not suggest Hobbes is fully confident in his model, and so seeks to cultivate a culture of ignorance in the commonwealth by eliminating the very ideas of opposing and alternative methods of rule. So, exercising the modern academic function of reading Leviathan, we can examine our social systems with clarity.  The discouragement of foreign influence reminds me of the events in the early 1950s concerning senator Joe McCarthy and his communist witch hunt (if I can be granted that editorial comment).  I think it not unreasonable to say these events were unnecessary, harmful, and frankly insulting to the American people; because it demonstrates an absence of trust.  In conclusion, I feel it is necessary for any system of government to welcome scrutiny from the people who submit themselves to its authority.  If fault be found, it should be analysed and corrected.  Resistance to this is only counter-productive and breeds an insincere commonwealth.