One-way Transfer of Rights

It would not be fair if the sovereign was punished by his subjects because the agents of the sovereign’s actions are the subjects. A person doing something with the authority he receives from another person does not do injustice to the person he acts on the basis of this authority. Since the founding covenant of the state is between the subjects, and the sovereign is outside this covenant, the sovereign is the subject of all his actions. A person complaining about what he is responsible for cannot blame anyone but himself. The ruthlessness of the sovereign power is not exactly injustice. These ideas of Hobbes reveal that he thought about the structure of the state and humanity both very simply and very complexly. He thought simply because he tried to formulate everything and said that right and wrong in everything are two extremes. He thought complex, because whether his ideas about human nature are pessimistic or hopeful can be interpreted differently in the short term and the long term. In fact, the rationale in this sentence of “For seeing every subject is author of the actions of his sovereign; he punishes another for the actions committed by himself.” is that if the subjects punish the sovereign, they will be punishing someone who should not be punished. It is the owner of these actions that should be punished (Hobbes 232). Actions are owned by the subjects. Although this formula, the limits of the authority given to the sovereign by the social contract is a monopol authority of the sovereign. This authority is given due to the idea that the sovereign is the real owner of this authority and that the thought that he can do anything and save his subjects from the state of nature can only be with the sovereign’s strategies. However, it is not argued that the sovereign will always do the right thing, his mistakes are not called as real injustice/unjust. Nevertheless, if the person who did the injustice suffers the punishment for the injustice done, the things that are right in Hobbes’ formula are not always changeable, because the formula does not always lead to the right result. The causality of the sovereign’s own actions is important at this point. Since one is naturally inclined to protect his own existence and interests, how can the sovereign draw the borders of the state he is sovereign, and therefore of his subjects, with his own limits?

Even when we accept that there are two injustices in penalizing a wrong done to the sovereign, which is not mentioned by Hobbes, one is the injustices that the sovereign done for his own benefit but as a regular person, no relation to the state; second one is the injustices that the soverign done for the sake of the state and the decisions being made about the political future, but maybe Hobbes thought that every action performed by sovereign is always derived from state’s political future, but now, it is known that there are seperate areas. For the first case, he did these for himself and for the second case, for his subjects. Because his political decisions are determined by the subjects selecting him. However, although this boundary is not drawn fully, the sovereign does not always need to question the consequences of his actions by using his authority, as the sovereign will not be responsible for the “unjust”. The sovereign also uses this authority for his own benefit and gets away with Hobbes’ understanding of injustice.

One solution of the issue that I discussed for the sovereign himself and for the political power of the state is as follows: Today, an understanding similar to this understanding exists in many countries and this manifests itself as the political irresponsibility of presidents. It is inconsistent with Hobbes’s ideas that the people controlling the citizens as a result of a right that was laid down so that the sovereign can provide the peace tahe this governing right from the citizens who are in fact the authors of the actions. At this point, Hobbes is hopeful that people will act for the idea that the sovereign will come out of the state of nature and abide by the contract that provides a peaceful environment, that he does not characterize the injustices done by the sovereign by the authority given by his subjects as unjust. Because Hobbes states that every commonwealth whether oppressive or liberal or tyranny is better than the state of nature. But the realistic answer to Hobbes, who uses the phrase “homo homini lupus est”, may be “man is man’s man”. So, the answer to the question of how a person being negative for human nature can be hopeful for human society is perhaps that Hobbes think that there is not any other solution for society. This may have led to the production of formulas that will somehow make a profit for everything it does as long as the sovereign power exists, such as Hobbes’ one.

To sum up, it is stated that the author of the sovereign’s actions are the subjects because they determine the sovereign as a result of the covenant. But, the claim that the sovereign has a full irresponsibility is not true and his actions can be divided into two categories as the decisions that will affect his own private life, and his political decisions. Here, the political irresponsibility comes into play. For the political actions, the author of these are the subjects because they lay down the rights about governance. But, the other ones such as a decision between the sovereign and a person, who is no relation to the state, are not involved the political irresponsibility. Hobbes thought that all the actions of the sovereign are owned by the subjects. On the other hand, it is more important that which right people lay down assesses which areas the sovereign can interfere with. The logic in the formula used by Hobbes contains weak causation. If the relationship between the person and the sovereign is not for a dispute between the person and the commonwealth, the dispute in this case is related to the right(s) transferred by the subject to the sovereign, that is, if the dispute between the subject and the sovereign is between two persons, then the subjects cannot be the owners of the sovereign’s actions on this issue. Because the dispute here is not about the rights that the subjects have transferred to the sovereign. The valid point is to know the boundaries between the areas he can involve because of the human nature being bad and selfish.

WORKS CITED

Hobbes and, David Lynn Golemon. Leviathan. Penguin Books, 2015.