Reading Notes: Chapter 21 of "Leviathan" On the Freedom of Subjects

In its original meaning, freedom refers to a situation without obstacles, to inanimate and The same applies to animate objects and living things. The obstacles here refer to external obstacles when the object moves.

However, when the obstacle to movement exists in the composition of the thing itself, it is often not said that it/he lacks freedom of movement, but only that it lacks the power of movement, like a still stone or a sick person. That's how people are.

A free man is a person who can do what he wishes without hindrance within the limits of his strength and wisdom. However, Hobbes believed that the word freedom cannot be applied to places other than objects that can move. For example, there is a problem with the word free will. From what is called "free will" does not follow the freedom of will, desire or intention, but only the freedom of man, which is the freedom to do what he wants to do without hindrance.

Here Hobbes gives several examples, one of which is: When a man throws his cargo overboard for fear of the ship sinking, he does so voluntarily, or, if he If he is brave enough, he may not do so, and therefore he remains free. Thus, Hobbes concluded:

Here, Hobbes also gave several examples. For example, water flowing down a river not only has freedom, but also necessity. The same is true for people's voluntary actions. Here Hobbes should be saying that every voluntary behavior of human beings is directed by some kind of desire (either the fear of death or the desire for honor), and desire is human nature. It is a necessity, so every voluntary behavior of human beings is free.

Here, Hobbes combines freedom and law, which is a major contribution of his. And with the advent of the state and the law, people's natural freedom has not disappeared, but is included in the freedom of subjects. The freedom of subjects needs to take into account the above-mentioned chains. His reasoning process is as follows:

a. Because the original meaning of natural freedom is freedom of action and personal freedom, and this freedom does not disappear after people enter the state of the country.

b. Furthermore, the law does not restrict people’s natural freedom, nor does freedom exempt them from legal constraints.

c. If freedom from restraint is obtained, it means that there is no power to ensure the implementation of the law, which means that people's safety will not be guaranteed.

d. Law and freedom are interlinked.

So what is the freedom of subjects?

Hobbes answered: In all actions not regulated by law, people are free to do what their reason thinks is best for themselves.

Hobbes believed that sovereignty, which has absolute power over life and death, is not limited by the freedom of its subjects. The reasons are as follows:

a. The behavior of the sovereign is authorized by each subject, so the behavior of the sovereign is what the subjects want. Furthermore, there is nothing the sovereign does to his subjects. You could call it unjust.

b. Even if the subjects are executed by the sovereign for innocent reasons, it still cannot be said that the sovereign has caused harm to the subjects. Here, Hobbes distinguishes between rights and specific actions. Even if this behavior seems to be unjust, the sovereign still has the right to do so, because this right is transferred to the sovereign by the subjects. This right is that in the state of nature, people can do whatever they want. The right to do something. Hobbes gave an example. The Athenians' shell banishment law often deported innocent people, but it cannot be said that the Athenian sovereigns had no right to banish them.

After discussing the freedom of ancient people as a country, Hobbes elaborated on the freedom of subjects. Hobbes starts from two questions:

Hobbes believes that these two questions are actually one question. A discerning person can also see that this one is discussed from the positive side and the other is discussed from the negative side.

The implicit argument a of these two questions is that our act of obedience contains both our obligations and our freedom.

Therefore, in order to support this argument, Hobbes resorted to the assumption b: The obligations borne by any person are generated by his own actions, because all people are equally Born free.

Sabine believes in "History of Political Doctrine" that this assumption is actually an axiom in the 17th century. For an obligation to be truly binding, it must be binding on all parties involved. The parties are free to assume it. Obligations cannot be imposed, they are always self-imposed. It is this belief that makes all obligations appear in the name of promise and consent. A person should keep the promises he makes because he himself created the obligation by his own behavior.

Deducing an entire logical system from an axiom or hypothesis is exactly the kind of research method advocated by the development of mathematical physics in the 17th century.

Returning to the freedom and obligations of subjects, Hobbes’s process of deducing argument a from assumption b is as follows:

Because the obligations borne by anyone are determined by arising from his own actions (assumed b), whether by explicit words (verbal oath "I recognize all the acts of the sovereign") or from the inclination of those who submit to the power of the sovereign (people who establish sovereignty voluntarily become subjects (the purpose is for mutual peace and defense against common enemies), both show that the subjects' obedience to the sovereign includes obligations and freedoms (argument a).

In short, if obedience is the behavior of the subjects themselves, then obligations arise; if obedience is the voluntary behavior of the subjects, then there is freedom.

1. Since sovereignty is generated by everyone entering into a covenant of trust with each other, subjects are still free regarding matters within the scope of natural rights outside of the covenant. Since a covenant not to defend one's body is invalid, when the sovereign orders someone to kill that person himself, that person is free to disobey and run away, but cannot harm the sovereign.

2. The subject's recognition of the sovereign is contained in the sentence: I authorize him to do all actions and be responsible for them. There are no restrictions on the natural freedom that the subjects themselves originally possessed. Here, Hobbes still distinguished between rights and specific actions. He gave an example:

Therefore, Hobbes concluded:

This summary is simply: sovereignty It is legitimate for a sovereign to execute his subjects, but the subjects who are executed can still escape, because the prerequisite for recognizing the sovereign is that their own safety is guaranteed, but similarly, the subjects cannot resist and harm the sovereign, because this is also harmful to his security.

3. No one is free to resist the force of the state in order to defend another person, regardless of whether the person he is defending is guilty or innocent. Hobbes believed that such freedom would deprive the sovereign of the means of keeping the people safe. But if an uprising or rebellion has occurred and the world is in chaos, people are free to unite to assist each other, because although the initial uprising is a violation of the contract, subsequent resistance is only to defend their own persons, and there is no injustice. Here, the sovereign can no longer guarantee his safety, and the sovereign is only a nominal sovereign. Therefore, in this case, it is legitimate to resist the so-called state's force.

Hobbes's logic here is a typical "protection-obedience" logic. Only the sovereign can provide protection, and the subjects have the obligation to obey.

4. The other freedoms of subjects depend on the provisions of the law, and freedom exists in the silence of the law.

5. Where there is law, when a subject has a dispute with the sovereign, he is free to defend his rights according to the law, just as he would a lawsuit against another subject. This is because the law has reflected the needs of the sovereign, and the sovereign has therefore stated that what he demands does not exceed the scope allowed by the law, so such litigation does not violate the will of the sovereign. But here, Hobbes said again:

There seems to be a contradiction here, but in fact Hobbes distinguishes between normality and emergency situations. Making decisions according to law is normality, and making decisions according to power refers to sovereignty. The right to make decisions on their own in emergencies. Both Bodin and Hobbes understood the meaning of sovereignty from the aspect of decision-making. Schmitt, a famous contemporary political scientist, has a famous saying: Sovereignty is the one who determines the state of exception. Judging from Hobbes's discussion here, Hobbes actually wants to say that first of all, the sovereign has the right to decide whether to make decisions based on the law or solely on his own power. That is, the state of normality and emergency are determined by the sovereign. Secondly, in an emergency situation, the law terminates, the sovereign directly shows his true face, and the subjects have no right to raise objections to the sovereign.

Hobbes emphasized obedience-protection, pointing out that the obligations of subjects to the sovereign only exist when the sovereign is able to defend them. Hobbes was not opposed to the change of government, but based on the actual situation, he believed that the change of government was often inevitable due to internal and external troubles. When the sovereign is unable to provide protection, obedience ceases. Here, we can see that Hobbes is not a sincere supporter of absolute monarchy. What he really supports is absolutism, because only absolutism can have the power to provide protection.