The answer for getting out of the state of war is to make a commonwealth which serves as the highest authority in the given territory which it governs. As Hobbes suggests there are two ways to achieve this. The first way is if people agree with each other to construct such an authority in order to gain security and peace. The second way is if an outside sovereign power takes over the territory in which people live in the state of nature. In both ways sovereignty is made. From a theoretical way of thinking there is no difference between the two paths for achieving sovereignty if all the citizens obey it and give their rights entirely in the hands of this higher power. Now with the presence of this higher power which controls the relations and conflicts between people, security is obtained. The quarrels which prior to the contract individuals judged themselves through their own views are now judged and controlled by the sovereign. He sets the rules by which everything will be made in the society. In his own words Hobbes concludes:
...all violence proceedeth from controversies…concerning meum and tuum, right and wrong, good and bad, and the like, which men use every one to measure by their own judgements; it all belongeth also to the judgment of the same sovereign power, to set forth and make known the common measure by which every man is to know what is his, and what another’s; what is good and what bad; and what he ought to do, and what not…
The sovereign gets out the people from the anarchic state. Therefore in order not to let the people go back to the state of nature the sovereignty which was established must be absolute. The sovereign has unlimited power to rule. He judges what is right and what is wrong and makes laws, conducts war, organizes the troops. It short, he is responsible for all of the political agenda in the state in which he rules. As Hobbes argues the power of the sovereign must be absolute in order to ensure peace within the territory. It can not be divided between different structures, it has to be centralized, thus if this is not the case this will lead to the destruction of the order which is made by the contract. Another part which contributes for the maintaining of the peace is the fact that the sovereign must have control of all the aspects of people’s lives. There must be nothing which might stop him to do whatever he thinks is best. In other words there are no legal obligations which can stop the sovereign to do whatever he sees as good.
The reason for making this higher authority may be seen as the fear in which people lived in the state of nature which Hobbes describes. This is a constant fear for their possessions, health and life. From here we can trace Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty. In the beginning Hobbes has two completely different theories for the nature of sovereignty. The first one is that it does not come from the will of the individual. On the other hand the other suggests that it originates from the act in which the majority people give authority to one person or a group of people therefore making him (or them) the sovereign entity. In his last theory on sovereignty he combines the two previous theories together in a clearer picture. In it people give their own rights to this higher power which represents their wills. They do this because of those fears which were mentioned above. By doing so they remove all the prior multiple fears of every other individual replacing it with a single fear of the authority. They know that they will only suffer if they do not obey the rules set by it. This brings a sense of security in the people but also makes them fear and respect the higher authority.
This gives us the picture of the sovereign as a creature which is separated from the people and is supreme to them. It judges and punishes everyone who does not obey. Hobbes describes the Leviathan as a “mortal god” and “the greatest of human powers” On the other hand he suggests that the sovereign is not something separate from the individuals in governs. The individuals themselves are the key parts of this sovereign body. If they were absent the sovereign couldn’t exist. They are not consumed by this higher authority. Instead every single individual keeps his own individuality.
We can conclude that for Hobbes life without a higher authority brings back the people in the state of nature. In it individuals are in a constant fear for their possessions and lives. People are insecure and don’t trust each other. Hobbes gives the answer for bringing back peace and security in people’s lives. He sees the way for getting the people out of the state of nature as the subordination of all people’s rights to a higher authority. But in order to keep the state of security and peace he sets out some key aspects for the sovereignty. For Hobbes sovereignty has to be absolute, therefore there could be only one and ultimate higher power in to prevent the system from falling apart and going back to the previous state of insecurity and constant battle between people. He sets out these key features of sovereignty which for him are essential for maintaining the peace within the territory which the sovereign governs. He has the final and ultimate power to rule the people. These key principles come as a conclusion of what is necessary not to allow the insecure life in the state of nature to take place.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
Hampsher-Monk, Iain (1992) A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hobbes, Thomas (1968) Leviathan / edited with an introduction by C. B. MacPherson. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968.
Macpherson, C. B (1962) The Political Theory Of possessive individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strauss, Leo (1952) The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: its basis and its genesis. Chicago ; London : Chicago University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. (1960) Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Boston [Mass.]: Little, Brown.
Macpherson, C. B (1962) The Political Theory Of possessive individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.19
Hampsher-Monk, Iain (1992) A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 23-24
Hobbes, Thomas (1968) Leviathan / edited with an introduction by C. B. MacPherson. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. p.186
Macpherson, C. B (1962) The Political Theory Of Possessive Iindividualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 24-25
Strauss, Leo (1952) The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: its basis and its genesis. Chicago ; London : Chicago University Press. pp. 23-24
Hobbes, Thomas (1968) Leviathan / edited with an introduction by C. B. MacPherson. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. p. 97
Hampsher-Monk, Iain (1992) A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 36
Macpherson, C. B (1962) The Political Theory Of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 20-21
Hobbes, Thomas (1968) Leviathan / edited with an introduction by C. B. MacPherson. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. pp. 172-173
Hampsher-Monk, Iain (1992) A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 45-46
Strauss, Leo (1952) The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: its basis and its genesis. Chicago ; London : Chicago University Press. pp. 66-67
Hobbes, Thomas (1968) Leviathan / edited with an introduction by C. B. MacPherson. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968.
Wolin, Sheldon S. (1960) Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Boston [Mass.] : Little, Brown. p.226