>True, Hobbes does not say that they are equal in power per se but per accidens
>since the weaker can combine, outwit, etc. the physically more powerful. But
>even this is not empirically true as far as I can see. In the state of nature
>the situation in the Lord of the Flies is a possible outcome. The weak and
>decent kid gets shafted. Certainly powerful leaders whether through
>intelligence or strength or whatever impose rules upon others.
Momentarily perhaps, but even the Lord of the Flies can never rest assured in his temporary dominion; in fact, in Hobbes's opinion, equality makes sure that any dominance is short-lived, since the condition of war of all against all never ceases without the _right_ constitution of sovereignty. Hobbes makes much of the idea that Leviathan is an artifice, a product of conscious & collective human endeavor, not a "natural" (=spontaneous) outcome. Perhaps it is possible to say that we have yet to bring any Leviathan into being, at least not in the sense that Hobbes speaks of Peace and War: "the most sudden, and rough busling in of a new Truth, that can be, does never breake the Peace, but only sometimes awake Warre. For those men that are so remissely governed, that they dare take up Armes, to defend, or introduce an Opinion, are still in Warre; and their condition not Peace, but only a Cessation of Armes for feare of one another; and they live as it were, in the procincts of battaile continually (Hobbes, _Leviathan_, Chapter XVIII). Today, we live in merely a Cessation of Armes, without the rightly constituted Leviathan that Hobbes thinks can bring an end to war.
>It may be
>reasonable for an egoist to submit but it may be reasonable to escape if
>possible or even plot to overthrow the sovereign.
Yes. That is why Hobbes endorses the right of "Guilty" men to defend themselves against the State (see my post titled "Hobbes on War & Capital Punishment"). I'd really like to know if any other major Western philosopher (other than Marxists and Anarchists) has ever endorsed the same right.
Now, more generally, "The Obligation of Subjects to the Soveraign, is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them. For the right men have by Nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no Covenant be relinquished" (Hobbes, _Leviathan_, Chapter XXI). It would make sense to go for a revolutionary overthrow of the State when the "Soveraignty...the Soule of the Common-wealth...[departs] from the Body" (Hobbes, _Leviathan_, Chapter XXI). Being a chicken, Hobbes doesn't draw this logical conclusion, but it doesn't mean that others can't.
>For Hobbes, revolution is always wrong in the planning and always right if
>it is successful.
So did Kant. Now, what of Spinoza? "[E]very state must necessarily preserve its own form, and cannot be changed without incurring the danger of utter ruin (Spinoza, _Theological-Political Treatise_, Chapter 18). Oh, well.... Nonetheless, in the case of Kant, an argument against revolution is inherent in his notion of the right, whereas in the cases of Hobbes & Spinoza it doesn't seem to follow naturally from their respective philosophical premises. For both Hobbes & Spinoza, the question boils down to power & utility, whereas Kant is not prepared to say that.
Yoshie