The following is the incendiary climax of Chapter 5 in Principles of a Free Society:
A thief, or a philanderer, might look for arguments against the rights of property, or marriage, with which to justify himself. He will prefer strong arguments but will settle for weak ones if they are all that he can find. And herein lies the importance of Hobbes: that although his case for sovereignty must be one of the weakest arguments a philosopher has ever penned, yet it is the best defense that can be made of the cowardly subservience and statist bigotry with which much of mankind has, for thousands of year and still in the present day, not only submitted to-- that might be done in a spirit of meek but unbowed nonresistance, as Socrates submitted to his Athenian jury and Christ to Pilate and the Sanhedrin and Gandhi to the British Raj, hating the sin while loving the sinner-- but condoned, endorsed, approved, cheered, praised, honored, respected, believed in and aided even the most brutal, unjust, and lying rulers, and sneered at and persecuted those who spoke truth to power, all of which can, thanks to Hobbes, be summed up in a word: sovereignty.
Now, doesn't that make you want to buy the book and see how I got there?
himself. He will prefer strong arguments but will settle for weak ones if they are all that he can find. And herein lies the importance of Hobbes: that although his case for sovereignty must be one of the weakest arguments a philosopher has ever penned, yet it is the best defense that can be made of the cowardly subservience and statist bigotry with which much of mankind has, for thousands of year and still in the present day, not only submitted to-- that might be done in a spirit of meek but unbowed nonresistance, as Socrates submitted to his Athenian jury and Christ to Pilate and the Sanhedrin and Gandhi to the British Raj, hating the sin while loving the sinner-- but condoned, endorsed, approved, cheered, praised, honored, respected, believed in
Posted by: cheap Timberland Boots | December 12, 2011 at 11:59 PM
justify himself. He will prefer strong arguments but will settle for weak ones if they are all that he can find. And herein lies the importance of Hobbes: that although his case for sovereignty must be one of the weakest arguments a philosopher has ever penned, yet it is the best defense that can be made of the cowardly subservience and statist bigotry with which much of mankind has, for thousands of year and still in the present day, not only submitted to-- that might be done in a spirit of meek but unbowed nonresistance, as Socrates submitted to his Athenian jury and Christ to Pilate and the Sanhedrin and Gandhi to the British Raj, hating the sin while loving the sinner-- but condoned, endorsed, approved, cheered, praised, honored
Posted by: Retro Jordan | December 13, 2011 at 04:48 PM
justify himself. He will prefer strong arguments but will settle for weak ones if they are all that he can find. And herein lies the importance of Hobbes: that although his case for sovereignty must be one of the weakest arguments a philosopher has ever penned, yet it is the best defense that can be made of the cowardly subservience and statist bigotry with which much of mankind has, for thousands of year and still in the present day, not only submitted to-- that might be done in a spirit of meek but unbowed nonresistance, as Socrates submitted to his Athenian jury and Christ to Pilate and the Sanhedrin and Gandhi to the British Raj, hating the sin while loving the sinner-- but condoned, endorsed, approved, cheered, praised, honored, respected, believed in and aided even the most brutal, unjust, and lying rulers, and sneered at and persecuted those who spoke truth
Posted by: ugg boots for sale | December 19, 2011 at 01:23 AM
EO EO EO EO.....BECAUSE OF YOU, I WILL TRUST EVEYRONE AROUND ME....
Posted by: Great Wall Tour | December 22, 2011 at 05:13 PM
Your article looks good, I like bits and pieces of daily life, like a movie.
Posted by: beijing Kungfu show | December 28, 2011 at 06:19 PM
I have not read your book, but I see in the reviews that you state that we should be free to roam about the earth, yet at the same time feel that we should still have conditions applied to allowing people to do so, such as tax restrictions. How do you resolve this apparent contradiction? I also wonder whether you approach the issue that since government by definition must initiate force against the individual in order to make them act a certain way, it cannot possibly exist in a free society.
Posted by: Red Scourge | December 29, 2011 at 09:43 AM
Considering how many possible resolutions there are to such an open-ended question, I think one would really have to read the book, which is very inexpensive.
Posted by: nato | December 31, 2011 at 12:04 PM
here are simple, healthy ways to reduce tension that don't involve drinking or computer games.
Posted by: meizitang | January 24, 2012 at 07:05 AM
Nice blog
Posted by: Billy | January 29, 2012 at 06:57 AM