"one in which there really is no such thing as society, only individual men, not even their families."
People blame Thomas Hobbes for his pessimistic view of human nature, but Hobbes actually wanted people to live in peace and prosperity, he was just surprisingly clear-eyed about the trade-offs involved. Prior to the institution of regular government, says Hobbes, all of human life is just "a war of all against all," and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." You give up absolute freedom (where you and your family might be murdered by pirates and brigands) in exchange for a measure of security, says Hobbes, and the pirates and brigands will now be duly prosecuted by the state. Was Hobbes wrong about this? I do not think so.
Hobbes missed the Afghan example, where there are states or at least polities, but the people in them have neither freedom nor security; well, Kings have freedom, but no security. The common people have neither, especially if they are women.
"one in which there really is no such thing as society, only individual men, not even their families."
People blame Thomas Hobbes for his pessimistic view of human nature, but Hobbes actually wanted people to live in peace and prosperity, he was just surprisingly clear-eyed about the trade-offs involved. Prior to the institution of regular government, says Hobbes, all of human life is just "a war of all against all," and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." You give up absolute freedom (where you and your family might be murdered by pirates and brigands) in exchange for a measure of security, says Hobbes, and the pirates and brigands will now be duly prosecuted by the state. Was Hobbes wrong about this? I do not think so.
Hobbes missed the Afghan example, where there are states or at least polities, but the people in them have neither freedom nor security; well, Kings have freedom, but no security. The common people have neither, especially if they are women.