WEBVTT

NOTE Hobbes, Minarchism, and Anarchy

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.440
I'm going to try to argue that Hobbesian anarchism is a coherent thesis and I'm also going to

2
00:00:06.440 --> 00:00:10.880
argue that Hobbesian minarchism is an incoherent thesis.

3
00:00:10.880 --> 00:00:14.020
First question I think should come to mind is why this paper?

4
00:00:14.020 --> 00:00:21.340
Very few, if any anarchists, certainly anarcho-capitalists are Hobbesians.

5
00:00:21.340 --> 00:00:22.340
So what does it matter?

6
00:00:22.340 --> 00:00:26.000
I think one of the important things is that most other people, most political theorists

7
00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:34.000
are either Hobbesian explicitly or certainly very influenced by Hobbes' state of nature theory, this sort of stuff.

8
00:00:34.000 --> 00:00:46.000
And so it's important to be able to speak about them and to them more on their own terms, rather than sort of always fighting on sort of the meta level, you know, foundational disputes or something like that.

9
00:00:46.000 --> 00:00:53.200
The second part is there's, I think, a philosophical strength to arguing within an argument, granting

10
00:00:53.200 --> 00:00:57.280
someone his or her premises and then working from within those as opposed to, again, sort

11
00:00:57.280 --> 00:01:00.960
of trying to clash head on from foundational assumptions.

12
00:01:00.960 --> 00:01:03.200
And finally, I think it's just best not to whine.

13
00:01:03.200 --> 00:01:06.260
I'm projecting on people here, but I tend to get really annoyed when people don't see

14
00:01:06.260 --> 00:01:11.400
something that I see as obvious, and so I start sort of, you know, dragging my feet

15
00:01:11.400 --> 00:01:14.040
and wondering how they manage to tie their shoes in the morning.

16
00:01:14.040 --> 00:01:28.960
I plan on going about it by isolating three from among possibly many necessary conditions

17
00:01:28.960 --> 00:01:32.880
for any political theory to be called Hobbesian, which is to say that any political theory

18
00:01:32.880 --> 00:01:37.240
to be called Hobbesian must obtain all three of these conditions.

19
00:01:37.240 --> 00:01:42.920
This is not an exhausted list, just three I isolated from the text in Hobbes that are

20
00:01:42.920 --> 00:01:51.160
I'm also going to show that minarchists, in this case an article by Michael Levin, fail

21
00:01:51.160 --> 00:01:58.600
to satisfy at least one of the three, thereby being not a true Hobbesian position.

22
00:01:58.600 --> 00:02:03.960
And finally, I'm going to show that anarchism can show all three, you can't really see in

23
00:02:03.960 --> 00:02:09.560
the box, but anarchism can satisfy all three.

24
00:02:09.560 --> 00:02:16.000
So I'll start with Hobbes' framework. Can you help me out there?

25
00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:21.200
This is obviously incredibly brief. I appear about the first 24 chapters of Book One in

26
00:02:21.200 --> 00:02:26.440
a paragraph. But I left nothing out, trust me.

27
00:02:26.440 --> 00:02:30.440
Human beings naturally find themselves in a state of nature, a war of all against all.

28
00:02:30.440 --> 00:02:37.200
Rationally desiring peace, they elect a sovereign whose rule and guidance staves off the scenario.

29
00:02:37.200 --> 00:02:42.640
So there are three necessary conditions found within that paragraph.

30
00:02:42.640 --> 00:02:48.280
I think, one, that people in the state of nature are rational, two, sovereign is established

31
00:02:48.280 --> 00:02:52.380
so that the war of all against all might end, and three, the sovereign must be a man or

32
00:02:52.380 --> 00:02:54.560
a group of men.

33
00:02:54.560 --> 00:02:59.480
By the people in the state of nature being rational, what I mean by that is they have

34
00:02:59.480 --> 00:03:05.640
an ability to recognize ends, they have an ability to recognize various means that will

35
00:03:05.640 --> 00:03:09.560
Achieve those ends, they have the ability to adjudicate among those means to best reach

36
00:03:09.560 --> 00:03:16.240
those ends. In other words, they desire their happiness and have at least some way of maximizing

37
00:03:16.240 --> 00:03:21.320
that happiness, reaching towards that end in the best possible way. I think that's important

38
00:03:21.320 --> 00:03:27.000
because in the state of nature, rationality, so far as I can tell, implies that people

39
00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:33.080
won't just choose any random sovereign, the first sovereign that maybe comes to somebody's

40
00:03:33.080 --> 00:03:37.520
But they will actually be able to adjudicate among several possibilities for sovereignty,

41
00:03:37.520 --> 00:03:38.800
and Hobbes actually allows for that.

42
00:03:38.800 --> 00:03:45.360
He thinks, he envisions something like an election to elect the sovereign.

43
00:03:45.360 --> 00:03:50.040
Sovereignty is being established to end the war against, of all against all.

44
00:03:50.040 --> 00:03:55.140
I think that's, other than the fact that it's pretty bloody obvious that that's in Hobbes.

45
00:03:55.140 --> 00:04:02.400
What that really means is that when the sovereign is elected, he doesn't, the state of nature,

46
00:04:02.400 --> 00:04:04.920
The state of humanity doesn't fundamentally change.

47
00:04:04.920 --> 00:04:09.820
The state of nature in the war of all against all is a rational response to the goings on

48
00:04:09.820 --> 00:04:12.440
of the world at that time.

49
00:04:12.440 --> 00:04:18.060
Simply because a sovereign comes about and makes the war costly or even impossible doesn't

50
00:04:18.060 --> 00:04:22.360
mean that human beings have somehow changed in their nature.

51
00:04:22.360 --> 00:04:25.920
When the sovereign is established to end the war, he's ending a war fought among human

52
00:04:25.920 --> 00:04:28.420
beings and is governing human beings.

53
00:04:28.420 --> 00:04:32.080
Nothing fundamentally changes in their nature after his election.

54
00:04:32.080 --> 00:04:34.880
And the third one, the sovereign must be a man or a group of men. Again, that sounds

55
00:04:34.880 --> 00:04:40.760
fairly obvious, but Hobbes himself was dealing with some people at the time who were sort

56
00:04:40.760 --> 00:04:47.200
of some form of millennialists or something who thought that God could be, primarily God

57
00:04:47.200 --> 00:04:53.120
could be a sovereign and Hobbes, for very good reasons I think, recognizes that no, for men

58
00:04:53.120 --> 00:05:00.280
to be let out of the state of nature, they must be let out by a man or a group of men.

59
00:05:00.280 --> 00:05:04.740
So here's Michael Levin's attempt to defend Hobbesian Menarchism in his article A Hobbesian

60
00:05:04.740 --> 00:05:09.840
Minimal State. He says, quote, There is in spite of all of this a clear sense in which

61
00:05:09.840 --> 00:05:14.560
the Hobbesian state is minimal. It is first minimal in intent. The sovereign's fundamental

62
00:05:14.560 --> 00:05:19.360
right is to secure us all against attack, primarily each other's attacks, and we give

63
00:05:19.360 --> 00:05:24.560
him our swords for this security. So we see then the purpose of sovereignty is to avoid

64
00:05:24.560 --> 00:05:28.900
violent death and the threat thereof. It is not concerned with education or access to

65
00:05:28.900 --> 00:05:40.260
The Sovereign's Election ensures that the utility of violence is reduced.

66
00:05:40.260 --> 00:05:43.940
That is to say, the absence of swords, which is the gift of the Sovereign, renders their

67
00:05:43.940 --> 00:05:45.720
utility obsolete.

68
00:05:45.720 --> 00:05:47.180
The absence of the plow does not.

69
00:05:47.180 --> 00:05:52.500
What Michael Levin is saying is that, look, what do you use swords for?

70
00:05:52.500 --> 00:05:57.320
They're not very useful for anything other than hacking off limbs and fighting battles.

71
00:05:57.320 --> 00:06:02.120
When the sovereign comes in and takes everyone's sword away, they have no reason to fight any

72
00:06:02.120 --> 00:06:03.120
longer.

73
00:06:03.120 --> 00:06:07.080
He's got all the swords now, you're not brandishing your sword, I'm not brandishing my sword,

74
00:06:07.080 --> 00:06:09.880
and we tend to sort of back off one another.

75
00:06:09.880 --> 00:06:13.800
Now Levin points out that the sovereign can't do that with a plow.

76
00:06:13.800 --> 00:06:19.760
If he starts to sort of co-opt and socialize food, say, and food production, well, we're

77
00:06:19.760 --> 00:06:22.360
all still going to be hungry at the end of the day, right?

78
00:06:22.360 --> 00:06:25.960
So the absence of plow doesn't mean, of a plow doesn't mean that the utility of the

79
00:06:25.960 --> 00:06:28.560
of the Plough is just obdurated, right?

80
00:06:28.560 --> 00:06:30.120
We still need them.

81
00:06:30.120 --> 00:06:32.880
So Levin thinks that the sovereign

82
00:06:32.880 --> 00:06:35.240
is a very unique institution

83
00:06:35.240 --> 00:06:39.400
because it only concerns itself with, again,

84
00:06:39.400 --> 00:06:42.640
the avoidance of death or threat thereof.

85
00:06:42.640 --> 00:06:45.200
And that's the job of the sovereign.

86
00:06:45.200 --> 00:06:46.040
So far as I can tell,

87
00:06:46.040 --> 00:06:49.480
there are at least two problems with Levin's proposition.

88
00:06:49.480 --> 00:06:51.200
One is a problem with his reading of Hobbes.

89
00:06:51.200 --> 00:06:52.220
I don't think he's Hobbesian.

90
00:06:52.220 --> 00:06:55.040
And two, it seems logical.

91
00:06:55.040 --> 00:06:59.680
First, it's not Hobbesian because Levin has not met the second condition that I laid out.

92
00:06:59.680 --> 00:07:02.640
Humans are still humans even after the election of the sovereign.

93
00:07:02.640 --> 00:07:05.400
The sword is not made obsolete but more costly to use.

94
00:07:05.400 --> 00:07:11.520
What I mean by that is simply because the sovereign takes away everyone's swords doesn't

95
00:07:11.520 --> 00:07:13.920
mean that I still don't want to punch you in the face, right?

96
00:07:13.920 --> 00:07:17.920
It just means it's going to be a lot harder for me to kill you and then if the sovereign

97
00:07:17.920 --> 00:07:22.720
has all the swords, it makes it a lot easier for him to come down on me in retribution.

98
00:07:22.720 --> 00:07:26.180
So fundamentally, even after we've been lifted out of the state of nature, we're still the

99
00:07:26.180 --> 00:07:30.180
same human beings, the world is still fundamentally the same, the very same thing that made us

100
00:07:30.180 --> 00:07:34.040
hostile towards one another in the state of nature is still making us hostile towards

101
00:07:34.040 --> 00:07:35.040
one another now.

102
00:07:35.040 --> 00:07:38.000
It's just that the sovereign's there to make us think twice, maybe three or four times

103
00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:40.920
before we decide to act in anger or something.

104
00:07:40.920 --> 00:07:44.360
Hobbes is clear about this all over the place, so I don't think Levin has read Hobbes very

105
00:07:44.360 --> 00:07:45.360
well.

106
00:07:45.360 --> 00:07:46.780
A second seems to be logical.

107
00:07:46.780 --> 00:07:50.580
Even if Levin's reading were Hobbesian, the power given to the sovereign could hardly

108
00:07:50.580 --> 00:07:52.240
be called minimal.

109
00:07:52.240 --> 00:07:55.560
Taking one sword and threatening him with it is an expansive power, not to mention taking

110
00:07:55.560 --> 00:07:56.920
the swords of an entire nation.

111
00:07:56.920 --> 00:08:01.680
I don't know how you could call that minimal, to disarm everybody and then threaten them

112
00:08:01.680 --> 00:08:05.920
with their own arms, and then throw it up and be like, whoa, hey man, let's not co-opt

113
00:08:05.920 --> 00:08:07.120
the education system.

114
00:08:07.120 --> 00:08:08.120
That's really expansive.

115
00:08:08.120 --> 00:08:11.560
All I'm doing is wanting to point all my guns at you and tell you how to behave.

116
00:08:11.560 --> 00:08:15.880
It just doesn't seem minimal in any coherent sense of the word.

117
00:08:15.880 --> 00:08:20.320
So the fate of Hobbesian minarchism, it's neither Hobbesian nor minarchist, and you may talk

118
00:08:20.320 --> 00:08:33.560
Anarchy means the absence of a state. The state is, as Murray Rothbard said, the organization

119
00:08:33.560 --> 00:08:37.500
in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given

120
00:08:37.500 --> 00:08:53.260
What arises from human interactions and is essentially the rules by which such interactions

121
00:08:53.260 --> 00:08:57.580
are most efficiently and successfully carried out? In short, governance is the organic and

122
00:08:57.580 --> 00:09:01.540
spontaneous rule and order which arises among interacting individuals.

123
00:09:01.540 --> 00:09:06.700
My claim for a Hobbesian anarchist position is that we can have everything Hobbes wants

124
00:09:06.700 --> 00:09:11.980
the sovereign to do without the state and using something like governance and I'll explain

125
00:09:11.980 --> 00:09:15.180
how that works here in a moment.

126
00:09:15.180 --> 00:09:18.860
So first off, why would people want to be anarchists in the state of nature?

127
00:09:18.860 --> 00:09:22.220
Well, it's because they're rational, the first sufficient condition and they want to

128
00:09:22.220 --> 00:09:28.180
maximize their happiness and it's not at all clear to me that the state is better than

129
00:09:28.180 --> 00:09:29.780
the state of nature.

130
00:09:29.780 --> 00:09:33.220
In the state of nature, the constant threat of war is sufficient to be a state of war.

131
00:09:33.220 --> 00:09:46.220
The conditions sufficient for a storm are necessary to call it stormy weather. It doesn't actually have to be lightning and actually be raining for us to consider a storm.

132
00:09:46.220 --> 00:09:55.220
Likewise, if there's a constant and real enough threat of war, we might as well be at war. We're all going to be brandishing our weapons. We're going to be constantly prepared to fight.

133
00:09:55.220 --> 00:09:59.460
Well, in the state, one lives under a constant threat of violence, right? That's how the

134
00:09:59.460 --> 00:10:05.100
state survives, it's how the state gets you to do what it wants. In short, with respect

135
00:10:05.100 --> 00:10:09.260
to the sovereign, people are still in the state of nature. So it's not clear to me at

136
00:10:09.260 --> 00:10:12.180
all that there's a difference between the state of nature and the state, and I think

137
00:10:12.180 --> 00:10:16.420
rational people, at least some, could think about it and could coherently reject the state

138
00:10:16.420 --> 00:10:22.700
and the state of nature. So because people wish to maximize their happiness, there must

139
00:10:22.700 --> 00:10:29.260
I think the sovereign can be guided by governance that arises from human interaction and is

140
00:10:29.260 --> 00:10:31.860
embodied by each member of the commonwealth.

141
00:10:31.860 --> 00:10:36.700
No particular member is herself or himself the sovereign because governance only arises

142
00:10:36.700 --> 00:10:40.460
among individuals and not within a particular individual.

143
00:10:40.460 --> 00:10:45.020
Governance supervenes upon the individuals interacting but is not identical to any or

144
00:10:45.020 --> 00:10:46.020
any part of them.

145
00:10:46.020 --> 00:10:48.520
Thus, the second and third conditions have been satisfied.

146
00:10:48.520 --> 00:10:52.660
What I mean by that is you can't really have governance with yourself, maybe in some really

147
00:10:52.660 --> 00:10:57.660
in metaphorical sense, but governance only arises when there are individuals interacting.

148
00:10:57.660 --> 00:11:03.140
Now that governance can be a guiding force and supervene upon individual members of a

149
00:11:03.140 --> 00:11:08.500
commonwealth such that we are essentially our own sovereign being guided by the governance

150
00:11:08.500 --> 00:11:11.540
which naturally arises from among us.

151
00:11:11.540 --> 00:11:15.900
So that satisfies both the second and the third conditions, the sovereign is embodied

152
00:11:15.900 --> 00:11:20.620
by a man or a multitude of them and has lifted us out of the state of nature of something

153
00:11:20.620 --> 00:11:50.620
Recapping, finally, there are my three sufficient conditions. People in the state of nature are rational, and underneath I say, wishing rationally to maximize their happiness, people in the state of nature could realize both that the state is hardly any different than the state of nature, and that the power allotted to it could be worse yet than any power similarly constituted individuals might wield in the state of nature.

154
00:11:50.620 --> 00:11:58.620
In a group of men, each member of the Commonwealth is himself an embodiment of sovereignty guided by governance in order that the war of all against all will end.

155
00:11:58.620 --> 00:12:06.620
So I actually think it's at least a coherent thesis. Now, I don't want to go in, I don't have the time, nor the Constitution to go into what this might look like, how favorable it is.

156
00:12:06.620 --> 00:12:18.620
I'm not a Hobbesian, but my goal here was just to show that I think one can accept Hobbesian premises, general Hobbesian inclinations, and still arrive coherently at anarchism.