slide # 1PS 226 - Hobbes

Hobbes is a “Foundationalist”

That is: he hopes to derive important general truths about politics and morals from a few fundamental facts* about people and their situations

[*Note: facts, not “intuitions” or “axioms”][Contemporary philosophers mostly think this can’t be done ... I’m old-

fashioned, myself ...]

Which fundamental facts?1. Rationality2. rough Equality [of vulnerability] 3. scarcity4. very limited altruism5. no natural morality-> discussion of each, next ....

slide # 2

1. RationalityPractical rationality: consists in getting information relevant to the

pursuit of our interests, and applying it to our decisions[i.e., “Deliberation”]The contemporary rubric for this is that we’re trying to “Maximize

our Expected Utility”]- utility is that about what we want that makes us want it - it’s - “payoff”- “expected” means that probability is factored in.

2. (Rough) Equality [of vulnerability]- we have some powers -- bodily and mental -- - not unlimited (!) - but significant - e.g., we can kill peopl- and not very different from what the others have - anybody can

kill anybody

slide # 3

3. scarcityis a function of both us and our environmentin the “State of Nature”, Hobbes assumes, the scarcity is pretty severeAlways and everywhere there is scarcity in relation to our overall

demands -- mankind is always looking for, and often finding, something better.... and Nature of itself doesn’t usually just give it to us....

4. (very) limited altruism- we don’t love people in general. (Hobbes makes an exception for

family - for the obvious reason that people (usually) do love their family members.

slide # 45. Amorality (no natural morality)- Hobbes denies that we are all just born with strong consciences

(or any)- [he does not deny that we can acquire them]

The argument: in the absence of Government (or morals), where people are “on their own” -

- Scarcity will lead to competition- Competition motivates us to eliminate competitors- Absence of (a) love or (b) morals means we’ll be uninhibited

from using violenceRationality tells us that the other guys reason that way too ...- So, they become your enemies- So, you resort to preemptive warfare- therefore, they do too ...

Conclusion In the S of N, there’s a “war of all against all”

slide # 5The “war of all against all”:

- frequent actual fighting- a perpetual liability to fighting- our lives and possessions continually insecure- So: no arts, letters, socializing, building, etc.

“And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

In normative terms, the problem is that “every man hath right to every thing”

So, no justice: “The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and

Injustice, have there no place.”

slide # 6

Is he right?Three questions:a) are his foundational claims right?b) do they imply that we will be in this terrible condition??(i.e., is his reasoning right? Or has he left something out?)c) is lack of government really the problem? Are there other feasible

solutions?

First: by ‘state of nature’ Hobbes wants to mean the “natural condition of mankind”

Second: he claims government is artificial - thus, he claims that in this natural condition there is no government

Note 1: for the present, We will simply define ‘State of Nature’ as the absence of Government]

Note 2: but not the absence of society - all this is about society!Society is just a whole bunch of people, many of whom were born and grew up there, and who interact with each other...

Note 3: society is not an association (whose members joined, deliberately, to pursue the association’s common purpose...)

slide # 7re (a): Which of the five claims about basics in the S of N might be

wrong?Here’s the list, again:

• Rationality• rough Equality [of vulnerability] • scarcity• very limited altruism• no natural morality

- These all look pretty good, don’t they??- [Remember, the claim is not that men are naturally bad.- Everyone is presumed to be acting rationally]

- Status of the posit of Rationality: [see next slide]

slide # 8About Rationality: - Hobbes doesn’t think that we are all equally brilliant- He does claim, however, that people in the S of N are acting

rationally- We should take this as a research program: would it be rational to

do these things?

- The other properties of S of N can be taken in similar spirit.- Clearly, people do not all love each other- Nor are they all perfectly moral, either at age 2 or ever!- [how many bad apples does it take, though? ....]- Clearly there often are scarcities of things we want- And obviously, there is in fact quite a lot of violence - both within

actual societies, and between nations.- Even so, we need to look deeper....

slide # 9Looking deeper....

Is violence ever rational?

Hobbes attributes it to three causes:“Competition, Diffidence, and Glory”

These differ1. Competitions and Conflicts- General Definition: A is in Conflict with B iff - if A wants and gets x, then B does not get x- [they can’t both be “satisfied” in regard to x]

- But things are more complicated ....

slide # 101. Competitions and Conflicts- But things are more complicated ....- Sometimes we can produce more by cooperating- Sometimes we can find a substitute, y, that will do. So, A takes x,

B takes y, and both are (reasonably) happy

- Three kinds of conflict:- a) Zero-Sum (“out-and-out”) [slide 11]- Here, A’s gain is B’s loss, period. - (The net changes of A and B add up to zero)- Many conflicts are not zero-sum, but partial- b) Notable among these is Prisoner’s Dilemma [slide 12 ff]- c) Sometimes the conflict is not “real”, but organizational:- Coordination Dilemmas [slide 14]

slide # 11a) A note on Zero-Sum games:

Our usual examples of these are not really “all-out”- competitive games, for example.If A wins, B loses, yes --- But they both enjoy playing - win or lose!

So the zero-sum games is only part of the situation. In the larger picture, there is cooperation

Thus: both abide by the rules - even when A is losing!In a fight to the death, it usually wouldn’t be so.[But consider duelling, for example....!]

slide # 12• b) Prisoner’s Dilemma • (players: A and B) A’s outcomes are at the left in each box, B’s at the right

B

• Cooperate Defect

• Cooperate 2nd, 2nd 4th, 1st

A

• Defect 1st, 4th 3rd, 3rd

• The “dilemma”: How will Rational Man Cooperate?

• Rational Man always takes his best option

• Defect always ranks higher than Cooperate!

• - This is the problem haunting Hobbes (and everybody....):

• Can we get to where it is better for all of us?

• [= The common good?!] -- stay tuned...

slide # 13Question: Why would rational man fight?Presumably, Hobbes supposes that in some sense he has no alternative.- If we are under threat of imminent death (either he kills me, - or I kill him...!) - then, he’s rightBut why would that be so?a) Re scarcities: cooperation could lead to greater production (of food, for instance) - so why not cooperate?b) despite Hobbes’ assumption of equality, maybe in this case, B is manifestly stronger. So A backs down.c) If they are approximately equal, then both will get battered - win or lose. What’s so rational about that? (Again: it depends on just what kind of scarcity it is - doesn’t it?)

slide # 14c) Co-ordination Dilemma:

B x y x 1, 1 0, 0A

y 0, 0 1, 1

If both do x, both win; if both do y, both winbut if they act differently, they both lose.There’s no real conflict of interest.But how do they get together? If they choose on their

own, their likely payoff is only 0.5Maybe government could come in handy here...?we’ll see!

slide # 15Enter the Laws of Nature

1. Hobbes asserts that there is a “right of nature” (R of N): to just go by our own judgment - no holds barred. If so, “every man hath right to every thing, even to one another’s body” -

[If A decides it’s best to kill B, that’s what A rightly does....]

Question: in what sense can this be a “right”?

slide # 16RightsNormally, they are normative: if Jones has a right to

something, then Smith has a duty - he ought to allow Jones to have it.

Definition: [A has a right to do x (in relation to B) = A is such that

B is required not to prevent A’s x-ing]But the supposed “right of nature” says that if Smith

doesn’t want to do this, he doesn’t have to!In the usual sense of ‘rights’ - if everybody has a right

to everything, then nobody has a right to anything!

slide # 17LibertiesHobbes says that the right of nature is a “liberty” that

we have .... A is At Liberty to do x = Nothing [or, Nobody] prevents

A from doing x[note: ‘liberty’ is essentially descriptive; ‘right’ is

normative]In the State of Nature, of course, people are preventing people from

doing stuff all over the place, all the time!So, what gives?Possible answer: Hobbes thinks that nobody can complain. The right of nature might be a right against criticism[but if we can do anything, then why not criticize??]- That criticism would be groundless - irrational. Would it??

slide # 18The Law(s) of Nature

Definition:Hobbes: “A LAW OF NATURE is a Precept, or general Rule,

found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.

RIGHT consisteth in LIBERTY to do, or to forbear; Whereas LAW determineth, and bindeth to one of them: so that Law, and Right, differ as much, as Obligation, and Liberty; which in one and the same matter are inconsistent.

[That is: Laws restrict liberty]So, how (and why) are our liberties to be

restricted? ...

slide # 19

The Law(s) of Nature: First (and Fundamental) Law1. “That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as far as he has

hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of War.

The first branch of which Rule, containeth the first, and Fundamental Law of Nature .. seek Peace, and follow it.

The Second [branch], the sum of the Right of Nature; which is, By all means we can, to defend our selves.”

[Note: now, defending ourselves is made into a real right. Which means, that we are morally required to allow others to defend themselves -

Against whom? Answer, given by the first branch: against attackers - those who don’t “seek peace”

- if only we can figure out who are attackers and who aren’t!]

slide # 20

The Law(s) of Nature: Second Law2. “From this Fundamental Law of Nature, by which men are commanded

to endeavour Peace, is derived this second Law;

That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth, as for Peace, and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.

[important: we each want as much liberty as possible. So Law 2 in effect says: allow others as much liberty as is compatible with yours

This has become known as the “Equal Liberty Principle”]

slide # 21

The Law(s) of Nature: Second Law Hobbes says the second law is derived from the first

How?Liberty: absence of obstacles- here the “obstacles” are the ones presented by the actions

of other peopleSo: if I don’t allow you a liberty, then I am preventing you

from acting. Suppose that your action would have been a peaceable one

(you weren’t about to harm anybody)Then my not allowing you to do that is attacking you -

violating peace. “Allowing everyone as much liberty as we want against

them” = being peaceable [QED]

slide # 22

The Law(s) of Nature: Third Law The third law is to keep your agreements. In Hobbes’ words: “ there followeth a third; which is this, That men perform their Covenants

made”

Why?Covenant: A says to B that A will do x, provided that B does y(Note that both are acting in their own interests - voluntary actions are

always presumed to be done from the interest of the actor)Suppose that B does y, as a result- and then A then proceeds not to do x, as promised.

slide # 23

The Law(s) of Nature: Third Law (continued) Covenant and Prisoner’s Dilemma:

Promising: To Keep or not?A and B make an agreement:

B

• Keep Break• Keep 2nd 2nd 4th, 1st• A• Break 1st, 4th 3rd, 3rd• The one who breaks first “wins”; the other is the “sucker” ….. But if

they both try to “break”, both are worse off… Prisoner’s Dilemma!

• - So, what does Rational Man do?• answer: break. But then we end up in the State of Nature• so the Law of Nature forbids that....

slide # 24

The Law(s) of Nature: Third Law (continued) Third Law: How is it derived from the first?Answer: the promise-breaker leaves the promise-keeper

worse offHe acts so as to worsen the condition of the other[You sell me the teapot for $10. I keep both the teapot and

the money.You are now down one tea-pot relative to the status quo ex

ante -> I have gained at your expense- If the exchange had gone through as agreed, we’d both be

better off (I prefer the teapot to the $10 - else I wouldn’t be buying it! You prefer the $10 to the teapot - else you wouldn’t be selling it!)

- So: to keep the peace, keep your promises!- Note: there’s no requirement to make them - just to keep

them if you do make them.

slide # 25

The Law(s) of Nature: Third Law (continued) Third Law: The General Problem with Covenant:Hobbes uses the term ‘covenant’ as a somewhat technical term:

an agreement wherein someone acts first and there’s a temporal gap til the second one acts.

In such cases, the temptation is to “take the money and run” -[cf. Woody Allen, 1969 ... ] take the benefits without paying the costs

Hobbes declares the third law to be the “fountainhead of justice.” Why?

Because all action is self-interested; therefore, if we are to have any obligations, they must be self-imposed

So: any valid restriction on your behavior must be one that you have voluntarily agreed to

Agreeing to the Laws of Nature amounts to an open-ended covenant with all other men.

slide # 26

• Law Three is the Source of Justice:• “in this law consisteth the Fountain and Original of JUSTICE”• 1. >> no Covenant, no transfer of Right - and every man has right to

every thing --> no actions Unjust • 2. Covenants, where there is a fear of nonperformance on either part ..

are invalid; No Injustice until the cause of such fear is taken away• 3. -> Therefore before the names of Just, and Unjust can have place,

there must be some coercive Power• 4. >> which requires erection of a Commonwealth• Justice: “the constant Will of giving to every man his own.” • --> No “Own” (no Property), no Injustice• >> No coercive Power erected, no Property• -> Therefore (claims Hobbes) Justice Requires Government• [- whether he’s right is what this course is about!]

slide # 27• Economics: • “Whatsoever is done to a man, conformable to his own Will signified to the

doer, is no Injury to him.” • The “received view” on Commutative and Distributive Justice:• Commutative - equality of value of the things contracted for [Grotius]• Distributive - equal benefit, to men of equal merit [Aristotle...]

• [Hobbes comments: “As if it were Injustice to sell dearer than we buy; or to give more to a man than he merits.

• “The value of all things contracted for, is measured by the Appetite of the Contractors”

• Economic justice:• -->> “Therefore the just value, is that which they be contented to give.”• In short: the right price is the agreed price (if not coerced)

slide # 28• [Compare with Aquinas (who gets it from Aristotle)

• Two sorts of business exchanges

• (1) “natural and necessary” - one commodity for another, or for money needed to buy what is in turn needed - praiseworthy, for it serves natural needs

• (2) money for money, or for goods to make money - rightly condemned

• trade in itself has “a certain quality of baseness” - “does not of its own nature involve an honorable or necessary end”

• So profit is wrong?

• Who’s right - Aquinas or Hobbes?

• Answer: Hobbes.

• Because profit is mutual advantage via mutual agreement.

• Aquinas’ personal vendetta against usury is unfounded ...

slide # 29

A Refinement: the “Moral State of Nature”We have proceeded on the assumption that by ‘state of nature’ Hobbes refers to

a social situation with no government. One of Hobbes’ five properties of man in the State of Nature is lack of “natural”

morality.OK: but no “natural morality” does not imply no morality at all.Hobbes thinks that the State of Nature situation is such as to undo the possibility

of morality’s being effective.We will now separate this issue from the political one by specifying a new

concept: the Moral State of Nature.By this is meant, a condition of man in which nobody has any moral sense - no

feeling that anything is wrong, that he has any duties of any kind toward anyone.

It would be a situation of general sociopathy as one might put it.

So now there are two questions about the State of Nature: (1) what would happen if people had no government at all? and (2) What would happen if they had no morality at all?

slide # 30

Cooperation and noncooperation:Imagining people without morals is imagining them without rules, and

this would seem to mean that any sort of cooperation is impossibleHow far can this reach?1) language 2) productive cooperation3) When you think of it, the Laws of Nature are cooperative.- we all “agree” not to kill each other. As long as you don’t attack me,

I don’t attack you - deal!The moral state of nature would mean that people couldn’t do this. They

would kill, rape, plunder, whenever it seemed to serve their interests to do so.

-> That the State of Nature would be a state of war of all against all looks plausible if the moral state of nature is supposed. [continued ...]

slide # 31

Why does Hobbes think that the 5 conditions lead to “war”?

- goods are in short supply [3]

- no one has any scruples [5]

- nor any affection for most others [4]

- no trust - so, offense may be the best defense [1]

- everyone knows that everyone else is his enemy [2]

Question: why is “everyone my enemy”?

Official answer: I’m hungry, there’s only enough for one, the other guy knows this too ...

Is that sufficient? Not if they could get together and say, “Now, just a minute here! Look, we could work on that land over there and grow some more ... (etc)...”

so: can they do this?

slide # 32

so: can they do this?

Remember, our question is, what would rational people do?

Hobbes lists 3 causes of quarrel -

Competition

Diffidence

Glory

Is fighting due to competition rational?

- yes, if there’s no other way. But what if there is?

- Diffidence: sometimes rational, sometimes not.

- (we can have irrational fears. But it is rational to fear the charging polar bear!)

- Glory? Another matter ...

slide # 33

- Glory? Another matter ...

- Is glory “rational”?

- In the first place, Hobbes says that rationality is getting what you want, whatever it is ...

- But, second : rationality is maximizing

- Note: glory is intrinsically competitive (as Hobbes defines it). It is logically impossible for us both to be “No. 1”

- The cost of “glory” of the Hollywood Western type is very high!

- A rational person weighs the utility of the various options. Glory costs you - there’s a high risk of losing, and a high cost whether you win or not.

slide # 34

- Glory costs you . . .

- Cooperation, if possible, can be hugely beneficial

- If fear isn’t a problem, and competition for resources, due to cooperation, can be avoided, then the payoffs for these others are high, while the risks of glory are high

- So maybe it would be better to forget about glory

- From the social point of view, glory is a problem

- (Note: A good solution is: play hockey instead!)

- (Note 2: Hobbes thinks “glory” is silly)

- If most people reason that way, we may not have the big problem Hobbes thinks we do ... stay tuned!

- [NOW go to Old Hobbes.1, slide 40 ....]

slide # 35- About Other Laws of Nature

- #4: Gratitude: if someone does you a good turn, don’t turn around and stab him in the back - “Endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will..

- #5: “Compleasance”: That every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest.

- #6:That a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it. # 7: Punishments: Men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow. Whereby we are forbidden to inflict punishment with any other design, than for correction of the offender, or direction of others. ... to hurt without reason, tendeth to the introduction of War (and is Cruelty.)#8: That no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare Hatred, or Contempt of another...

slide # 36- About Other Laws of Nature

#9: That every man acknowledge other for his Equal by Nature#10: That at the entrance into conditions of Peace, no man require to

reserve to himself any Right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest...

#11 if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, it is a precept of the Law of Nature, that he deal Equally between them. For without that, the controversies often cannot be determined but by War.

#12: [Equity:] That such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in Common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without Stint; otherwise Proportionally to the number of them that have Right. For otherwise, the distribution is Unequal, and contrary to Equity.

But some things there be, that can neither be divided, nor enjoyed in common. Then the Law of Nature, which prescribeth Equity, requireth [13]

#13: [If it can’t be divided, then] That the Entire Right; or else (making the use alternate,) the First Possession, be determined by Lot. For equal distribution is of the Law of Nature; and other means of equal distribution cannot be imagined.

slide # 37- About Other Laws of Nature

#14: They that are at controversy, submit their Right to the judgment of an Arbitrator. (And, no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause [If one gets “greater profit, honour, or pleasure” due to victory of one party, then “no man can be obliged to trust him.”]

• (This extremely interesting “law” needs a lot of thought. How do we decide which man is to serve as arbitrator?

• One obvious answer is: the one who is agreed to by both parties to the dispute

• And they will agree on the basis of his perceived track-record on such things

• - Also by perception of his common sense and good will

• [no small matter this, as we will see later!]

slide # 38

• Summary on Laws of Nature:• In one easy sum: Do not that to another, which thou

would not have done to thy self

• [note: consider the case of differing tastes: I don’t like to be tickled, but she does ...

• [has to be interpreted at the most general level:

• “Don’t do to people what they don’t like, unless they have themselves violated that very precept...”

• [“The sum whereof consisteth in forbidding us to be our own judges.” (Elements of Law, 2.5.2)

slide # 39• The Laws of Nature are Immutable and Eternal: • “for Injustice, Ingratitude, Arrogance, Pride, Inequity, Acceptation of

persons, and the rest, can never be made lawful. For it can never be that War shall preserve life, and Peace destroy it.”

• Note:

• >> The “Laws of Nature” are improperly called ‘laws’:

• - they are but Conclusions, or Theorems concerning what conduceth to the conservation and defence of themselves;

• whereas Law, properly is the word of him, that by right hath command over others.

• But yet if we consider the same Theorems, as delivered, in the word of God, that by right commandeth all things; then are they properly called Laws [reminding us of Grotius...]

• [?]

slide # 40• The Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:

• They oblige in foro interno (All must desire they should take place); but in foro externo; - that is, to the putting them in act, not always.

• >> He that endeavoureth their performance, fulfilleth them; and he that fulfilleth the Law, is Just.

• The “Sucker”: For he that should be modest, and tractable, and perform all he promises, in such time, and place, where no man else should do so, should but procure his own certain ruin, contrary to the ground of all Laws of Nature, which tend to Nature’s preservation.

slide # 41Queries re the Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:

• Our question: are you just being a sucker if you’re moral?

• Why should we cooperate in PD’s?

• Two answers:

• a) this is a straight deliverance of Reason

• [Hobbes can’t say this]

• b) because we’re nice

• [Hobbes can’t say that either]

slide # 42• about The FOOL

• The “fool”: “hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as Justice”

• He agrees that there are Covenants; but he questioneth, whether Reason might not recommend Injustice [Thrasymachus!]

• > “I say it is not against reason. Consider that in a condition of War, for want of common Power to keep them in awe, all are Enemies

• > He which declares he thinks it reason to deceive those that help him, cannot be received into any society, but by the error of them that receive him;

• >> which errors a man cannot reasonably reckon upon as the means of his security

• > if he be out of Society, he perisheth

• >> if he live in Society, it’s only out of others’ ignorance

• [that is, if others know that you think this, you’ll be ignored, or worse …]

slide # 43• Attaining Sovereignty by Rebellion cannot reasonably be expected, but rather the

contrary; • and because by gaining it so, others are taught to gain the same in like manner, the

attempt thereof is against reason• ->> therefore Keeping of Covenant, is a Rule of Reason

• Note how this depends on the condition of Equality of Vulnerability [#2 on slide 17]• - in the case of promising, it’s gullibility - and this is not obviously equal …• Question: how does it apply at the one-on-one level??• [society at large supports the peaceable and cooperative. • But in individual cases, there can be large local disparities of power - the man with

the gun has more than the unarmed storekeeper, e.g.]• Question: is there any other way to deal with this other than by instituting a pblic

police force?• [possible answer: No. A private police force might work too - or better … await

further…]

slide # 44Queries re the Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:

• Our question: are you just being a sucker if you’re moral?

• Why should we cooperate in PD’s?

• Two answers:

• 1. This is a straight deliverance of Pure Reason

• [Hobbes can’t say this]

• 2. because we’re nice

• [Hobbes can’t say that either]

slide # 45The Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:

• Why should we cooperate in PD’s? (continued)

• 3. Iteration ..

• Suppose A and B play PD repeatedly

• [and they don’t know when the last play is]

• A’s defection now invites B’s defection at the next round

• Each round you play, you lose more...

• Cooperation is then rational

• (This is the “folk theorem” on PD

slide # 46The Rational Status of the “Laws of Nature”:

• 3. Iteration .. (a third reason for cooperating)

• Suppose A and B play PD repeatedly

• [and they don’t know when the last play is]

• A’s defection now invites B’s defection at the next round

• Each round you play, you lose more...

• Cooperation then becomes rational (the “folk theorem”)

• Note on Iteration: In small communities (≤ 200) people are likely to do repeated play with the same persons

• In large communities, not... but there is....

• Chain connection: everybody plays with somebody who plays with somebody else, who ...

slide # 47Hobbes’ Argument for Government [first version]

• 1. The State of Nature would be terrible for everyone• 2. The problem is people running on their own individual

senses of what to do• 2.1 Those senses are altogether pre-moral and always are directed toward

maximizing the individual’s gain no matter how• 2.2. man in the S of N faces a Prisoner’s Dilemma, and because of the above

will go for the Suboptimal outcome (ie. War)

• 3. Therefore, we need a united central agency that can overpower any subset of the people i.e., the Sovereign

• 4. Hence, The State ....

slide # 48Hobbes’ Argument for government [second version]

• 1. The State of Nature would be terrible for everyone• 2. The problem: too much liberty - people running on their own

individual senses of what to do• 2.1 individuals trying to come to agreement will be stymied because promises without the

sword are “but words” and without force• 2.2. man in the S of N faces a Prisoner’s Dilemma, and because of the above will go for the

Suboptimal outcome (ie. War): we won’t be able to rely on people keeping agreements. Therefore we won’t make any such agreements, seeing that they are useless

• 3. Therefore, we need a united central agency that can compel people to keep their agreements.

• 4. To do this, the enforcer needs to be able to overpower any subset of the people i.e., the Sovereign

• Hence, The State .... [to which we move next]