The Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes: The Sovereign and the State

We all live in states today, and Thomas Hobbes has a good claim to have been the first person to articulate this concept in its modern sense. The intention of Hobbes’s civil science was to lower the temperature of politics, and his concept of ‘the state’ does this by standing as a fictitious entity, distinct from both the rulers who hold office and the population over whom rule is exercised. Ironically, once this concept was combined with the later concept of ‘the nation’, producing ‘the nation-state’, the result has often been to raise the temperature of politics to catastrophic levels.
Director and Animator: Grant Harding
Writer and Producer: Dr Ryan Walter, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Political Science and International Studies, The University of Queensland

[@Danobot11]

Underrated video. Deserves millions more views.

[@CodenameRockerika]

I wish there was one of these for Locke. I've not seen a better video for getting from "state of nature" to "sovereign" concisely and with good production value and detail.

[@farooqr4646]

Beautifully illustrated. I came to know about Thomas Hobbes recently as a result of listening to a podcast and was intrigued by his philosophy. I always thought that humans were better off living with nature, that as a result of laws and rules we have lost our way of being human but listening to Hobbes I came to a realization that nature is concerned about survival. Survival could mean killing and others taking advantage of the weak. To live in a society rules and laws are essential. Looking to read his book, Leviathan. Thank you for this video.

[@pingukutepro]

8 months since you commented. Did you read the book?

[@jermanizer]

there are many people who have effectively critiqued and deconstructed his political and philosophical model(s) presented in Leviathan, so I hope you don't stop here with your readings and treat this as somewhat of a stepping stone

[@gabyandrews1670]

Super informative and easy to follow; great video!

[@meawwow]

Who made this video. . .Is there a series?? Please make it a series Loved the flow and animations in the video, the director, animator knew and understood the subject❤️

[@waistcoat5066]

the animations made me laugh :) :) thanks! :D

[@jacobroth3300]

Please make more like these!

[@stelladejong6495]

neeeeeeeeeeeeed more of these PLEASE

[@MagicBrianTricks]

This video makes an error. In most states, and I mean actual states, Hobbes' sovereign is the constitution of the state.

[@MAHADEVAARADHY]

The animation was so cool I forgot to understand the concept.

[@murugaboopathyprathamesh2148]

respect bro

[@SergioBecerraII]

Excellent teachings.

[@dailyprayerandbiblereflection]

Thanks. Nice vid

[@kingmj87]

Recommending "In the Hills, the Cities" by Clive Barker. It's a short story about the Leviathan made flesh.

[@MidlifeCrisisJoe]

"Who is sovereign? The People, the Legislature, or the Judges, blah blah blah." The Judges. It's the Judges. They get to define power whenever it is tested, therefore they get to decide what is an exception and what is not. Therefore they have sovereignty.

[@akhilcruz8659]

having to watch this for school :0

[@ChunkyAppleCider]

Thomas Hobbes over here tryna get vore'd by the state

[@aclark903]

#Augustine may not have described the state in such terms, but his political philosophy in #DeCivitateDei precedes Hobbes by about a 1000 years ..

[@thekilogram2146]

hello bucks

[@waistcoat5066]

lol

[@werimutamihana1901]

So who exactly is the sovereign?

[@World_Yourz]

can you tell me, if you found out

[@polisci-dam8828]

@@World_Yourz Hobbes wrote that once people gave the power to the state, who hobbes deeply implied would be the crown. The Crown would be total soveriegne and the people could only over thow the crown in very few instances. I did a super simplification of it but it kinda gets the point across, if you wanna see the opposite side read about John Locke they were writing on opposite sides of the British Civil War, Hobbes for the crown, and locked for the parliament.

[@voightkampff7399]

Simple, the individual. Because he's the one exercising 'self-determination'. The sovereign cannot surpass his sovereignty, he just delegates the task of safety. The sovereign carry guns to enforce that task. Note: we should clearly understand that 'safety' is guarded by 'defence', whose army is composed by soldiers coming from the communities of the sovereigns. Thus, the national army only manages the soldiers in times of war (read national defence). Never ever put soldiers under central control and never ever hand over your (soevereign) guns to anyone. The same goes for infrastructure. The national administrative entity should only CONNECT the roads and railways between communities. The roads and railways should stay under control and management of the seperate communities.

[@scytale6]

There shouldn't be a written constitution. Just statutory law.

[@aussiereuben1]

The conclusion that Australia is doing alright with its devided sovereignty is not universally supported. PS: the UK Parliament has been sovereign since the 1660 restoration where the ‘King reigns but does not rule’. The Australian Parliament is a subsidiary of this arrangement, copying the existing model and making a subsidiary of it (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) whereby the Commonwealth Parliament is the sovereign, save its being subject to the UK Parliament, and again the King reigns but does not rule.

[@Wraithninja1]

The richest is the the sovereign now. They can buy favorable legislation

[@GeorgWilde]

You didn't even mention the army and the police.

[@voightkampff7399]

Never ever centralize army and police. The army and police members should belong at all times to the seperate communities of the city/nation/state. Note that alliances are made for safety reason only, because small communities are hard to defend. Never ever put army and police under central control during peace times.

[@akhonasikhakhane39]

😂😂😂

[@pradeeproll-79kumarsingh69]

Hobbs mostuch is very atractive

[@ElParacletoPodcast]

Terrible idea, the only true free way is, the free market capitalist way, with laws, but no government.

[@voightkampff7399]

Freedom does not exist. It's just a term. Freedom needs to be organized, because sooner or later money organizes a monoply of power and oligarchs will take over. Anarchie is the survival of the fittest (the most powerfull individuals getting organized in oligarchy). The same goes for libertariens, they are not connected to real life, bringing power and violence.

[@kleineitalien4246]

Lol, the guy argued with a fable to "justify" the state's existence and people actually bought this stupid idea.

[@voightkampff7399]

Agreed, he forgot to mention the problem that small communities are hard to defend against invasion from bigger entities.