Hobbes and political authority.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Naturally I disagree with Hobbes because, fundamentally, I find his theories of human nature to be abhorrent. I need some good theoretical criticisms though that can be used in an academic, regarding whether Hobbes provides a good account for obeying authority. Any good reading people can recommend or any general points?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Kropotkin's thiories about human nature are better.

[MarxSchmarx]

Crispin Sartwell in his (IMO incredibly pedantic and somewhat lame) "Against teh State: an intro to anarchist political theory" talks at some length why hobbes's argument is crap. In essence Sartwell, in an observation that has been around forever, rehashes the old argument that unless the social contract was formulated with everybody actively agreeing to it, it has no legitimacy. Because it was historically not done so, and even if it were requires continued assent, social contract basis for authority is illegitimate. Sartwell quotes hobbes at length to demonstrate the nonsense of the position.

Some have argued that in fact Hobbes is quite anti-authoritarian, and sees the light of individual reason as taking precedence over the leviathan. The argument has never really impressed me, although Hobbes does go to some length to apply a methodological individualism so on some level there is a hint of protestant liberalism in his approach.

[jookyle]

I would say that Hobbes writes more about the need for a centralized authority because of the inherit violant nature of human beings(his arguing the primary role of the state to protect it's citizens from violant death for example) rather than his arguing for the legitimacy to follow it.