Now that the dust is settled, can we agree that he was right about pretty much everything?

>Hobbes, the bane of autistic AnCaps

How? How has democracy not devolved into mob rule? Are you a Hobbesian in the "we need a single autocratic ruler" sense?

This. Democracies clearly don't have informed voters, so there's no use for it.

mere formality, hereditary in practice.

compare first world countries with failed states

one may have reserved constitutional rights but they are also big, powerful, and quick to enforce their laws. Their people are educated with the schools and institutions they provided using resources taken from their people, and are secure that their nation can fend off threats foreign and domestic since they have the ability over the lives of most people in the world. Murderer in the neighborhood, he'll be executed, third world country looking at them funny? blwon up, First world country believes he can take you, it'll bitch out due to your countries nuclear dick.

less stable countries don't have that their army and law enforcement is nerfed by paramilitary organizations and gangs, they don't have enough resources so they can't build infrastructure and educate people into skills and better trains of thought, and no one there believes that their government can protect them so they often seek protection from someone strong enough to do so (like aforementioned gangs and paramilitants).

>they are also big, powerful, and quick to enforce their laws. Their people are educated with the schools and institutions they provided using resources taken from their people, and are secure that their nation can fend off threats foreign and domestic since they have the ability over the lives of most people in the world. Murderer in the neighborhood, he'll be executed, third world country looking at them funny? blwon up, First world country believes he can take you, it'll bitch out due to your countries nuclear dick.

Explain the Soviet Union.

>Murderer in the neighborhood, he'll be executed
This is only true in certain parts of the US.

Certain parts of the US does not = the entire first world.

Europe is comparably civil to criminals.

which time

during the revolution,where it was an "all against all" scenario?
during it's reign, which they were pretty stable albeit oppressive?
Or when it collapsed, when reforms where made that pretty much removed the pillars of its stability that being it's control of information, it's use of force to keep it's people, unions, and satellites in line, and the equilibrium of it's socialist economy?

I mean how through most of its existence it met most of those criteria you listed and yet was still a shit hole.

Also,

>equilibrium of it's socialist economy

kek

>muh capital punishment is barbaric

yeah but they still incarcerate them and remove them from society

which is a demonstration their state's power (though yeah I probably should've used "execution") you understand that even if a person isn't morally in the right, the government will protect you from him

A shithole that was a world power, a nuclear power, an ever-looming threat to Europe and the US, and the first ones into space

and the economy though could've done better was pretty stable for the 40 years of the Cold war (then Yeltsin was all "we liberal democracy now" and it all fell apart)

>A shithole that was a world power, a nuclear power, an ever-looming threat to Europe and the US, and the first ones into space

And yet they couldn't grow wheat and built exact replicas of factories in the American rust belt.

>and the economy though could've done better

Understatement of the year famalam

>But those tribes essentially represent his authoritarian state anyway, since they always have some patriarch who decides the rules etc.
You nailed it. Whether its Anarchy or Monarchy Aryans and most other races will gravitate to a strong male leader. Freedom is an illusion, and 'anarchy' always turns into government. Government is inevitable.

To my understanding the Soviets could have focused more on consumer goods and not so much massive industrial production. I might be wrong.

>the Soviets could have focused more on consumer goods and not so much massive industrial production.

The funny thing is you think those two are mutually exclusive.

What do you think produces consumer goods?

Even if the Soviet Union was not an optimal state, it was still better than having no central authority holding the monopoly of violence. By and large, life is better when organized violence is limited to the sovereign, whoever or whatever that is.

Trying to reconcile free exchange of goods and services with the reality of violence is folly.

that's literally what Hobbes said though

He based his argument on the assumption that all men are born equally according to nature, and that any difference between people is insignificant. They had no understanding of genetics though. Even Locke acknowledged that we are born with innate sense understanding, the problem is that now we are finding that our more complex processes are *also* caused by genetics. The extent to which our genes determine our behavior is debated, but Hobbes' entire case is build upon incorrect assumptions of human nature. His work is interesting, and is one of the best defenses of absolutism. Like the Republic, Leviathan acts like a tonic. It's good to dip back into it and refresh yourself.

> But those tribes essentially represent his authoritarian state anyway, since they always have some patriarch who decides the rules etc
I'm glad to see modern Hobbesians continue Hobbes's teachings of pulling anthropology straight out of your asshole.

That's the covenant. The only role of the state in this contact is to enforce law (internal) and protect the citizens from invasion. He's pretty dismissive of other applications of sovereignty.

The internal protection is law, to protect the population from itself. The external is the military, to protect from invasion. He stresses that the fear men have of themselves is more important than fear of invasion. His argument would be justified even if there were only one country.

>you understand that even if a person isn't morally in the right, the government will protect you from him
I don't really agree with this because largely the state doesn't do this here. Not as much as you'd think anyway. I live in the US and there was a supreme court decision that basically said that the police are not actually obligated to protect you from any given criminal. Around here police mostly just arrest them after the fact.

The first and only duty of the state is to provide for the common defense against internal and external violence. Hobbes says that while the state upholds its duty its government is legitimate. So long as the sovereign provides defense his subjects owe him allegiance, no matter what I'll he brings short of physical injury. The contract is that in exchange for protection you owe the sovereign absolue allegiance and shall abide by his laws, no matter how capricious or arbitrary.

Yes, OP. Hobbes was right.

> The only ones who disagree are people who think the masses will make good choices for both themselves and the common good, which is insane.
in other words, libertarians

Being as monarchist governments are a joke compared to modern democracies no he was not right. As flawed as the system is its better than what was