|
usp,
hobbes argued that, when the people decided to remove themselves from "the natural state" of total freedom, that the society that was created saw its constituents surrender part of their "natural liberties" to the sovereign (or sovereign body) in exchange for protection from the ravages of the "natural world" (ie the conditions of men at war using his terminology) and the resultant freedom to live their lives in a peaceable condition.
Hobbes was arguing against the "free state of man" as he famously believed that the conditions of life in that state were "nasty, brutish and short", but he did think that Man could come to a point of understanding with their sovereign when certain liberties were surrendered in order to maintain the rest of them in peace.
in the hobbesian worldview true anarchy is true freedom, civilized society is the "least free" but he makes a point that everyone considers their own society the "freest".
his idea of the "social contract" is one that is compelling. in the UK perspective, people did freely surrender their "right" to bear arms given the views expressed in Parliament after various incidents; the members of this society also surrendered its "right" to a part of its property for the NHS on the understanding that they would recieve free healthcare of quality. the fact that these "rights" were surrendered willingly means that the UK is a free society (albeit not in the total-freedom sense according to Hobbes).
the US has made its own contract between the people and the government (to use hobbesian language) at which certain of your "natural freedoms" were surrendered in exchange for peace - they were choices freely made under the same conditions as we made our choices, which means that both societies are composed of "free men".
|