----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Questions for Justin and Luke
> I take it you reject Hobbes' view that any government is better than none,
> which is clearly a might makes right argument of a sort.
A sort thoroughly divorced from common usage. Theological voluntarism may be seen as an interesting example of a conventional might makes right argument.
> Yeah, it's a sort of social contract argument but "Covenants extorted by
fear are > valid," he says.
For this reason (cut and pasted from an essay I wrote last month):
"Importantly, Hobbes does not concern himself with the conditions under which covenant is made. Even when acquired under the force of death, Hobbes considers covenant to be binding (Hobbes 127). Hobbes reasoning for this conclusion goes something like this: the choice between submission or death varies not in kind but by degree from the choice between submission or living nastily, brutishly, and shortly in the state of nature. The presence of a figurative gun (or axe) directed towards one head is more than sufficient to elicit covenant to a sovereign from rational agents pursuing their self-preservation. The addition of a literal one is entirely superfluous."
> Interestingly Kant runs a version of the same line.
Where? I know he prized obedience to one's government.
-- Luke
> Jeremy Waldron
> think's he basically Hobbesean on this. jks
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.