These assumptions yield a state of nature, potentially filled with struggle. The right of each to all things invites serious conflict, especially if there is competition for resources, as there will most likely be over at least scarce goods such as land, spouses, capital...etc. People will quite naturally fear that others may invade them, and may rationally plan to strike first as an anticipated defense. Conflict will be further fueled by disagreement in religious views, moral judgments...etc. Pretty much, Hobbes imagines a state of nature in which each person is free to decide for himself what he needs, what judgments he thinks is best, enforcing his views where he can. In this situation where there is no common authority to resolve these many and serious disputes, I think that the state of nature would eventually become a "state of war".
When people mutually agree with one another that they will obey a common authority, they have given the right to a ruler to rule in various ways. One way is called “sovereignty by institution.” Meaning that citizens have entered into a social contract in which they agree to obey the ruler. Another way, the right to rule is acquired is via “sovereignty by acquisition”; a social contract where citizens agree to obey a ruler in return for protection of the conqueror. These are equally legitimate ways of establishing sovereignty, according to Hobbes, and their underlying motivation is the same—mostly fear—whether it’s of one’s fellows or of a conqueror. Political authority depends not on how a government came to power, but only on whether it can effectively protect those who have consented to obey it; political obligation ends when protection ceases.
Although Hobbes offered some matter-of-fact grounds for preferring monarchy to other forms of government, his main concern was to argue that effective government—whatever its form—must have absolute authority. Its power must be neither divided nor limited. The powers of legislation, adjudication, enforcement, taxation, war making are connected in such a way that a loss of one would effect the exercise of the rest; for example, legislation without interpretation and enforcement will not serve to regulate conduct/behavior. Only a government that possesses all of what Hobbes terms the “essential rights of sovereignty” can be reliably effective. Paralysis of an effective government may cause the degeneration into a civil war to settle the disputes that may occur among citizens. Hobbes concludes that the government shall have absolute authority and to avoid the horrible prospect of governmental collapse and return to the state of nature; therefore people should treat their sovereign as having absolute authority.
While Hobbes insists that we should regard our governments as having absolute authority, he still believes that citizens have the liberty of disobeying government commands that would require them to sacrifice their lives or honor, unless the commonwealth’s survival depends on them doing so. Many people who research Hobbes are put off by his acknowledgment of apparently unchallengeable rights “true liberties of subjects” as he calls them because it seems incompatible with his defense of absolute sovereignty. Moreover, if the sovereign’s failure to provide adequate protection to subjects extinguishes their obligation to obey, and if it is left to each subject to judge for his/herself the adequacy of that protection, it seems that people have never really exited the fearsome state of nature.
In terms of whether or not Hobbes’ ideology is feasible when related to society, I would have to say that it is not. Hobbes’ idea of how a society should be run ad what type of government should be I place is more suited for the Victorian era where monarchies and dictatorships weren’t welcomed, so much as tolerated. In a society such as ours is, I cannot imagine an absolute governmental system, where people have to submit themselves to an absolute political authority. In my view, where Hobbes claims that this type of authority will decrease the degeneration to civil war, it only causes the citizens of society to become fed-up with someone else, basically running their lives. Examples of how monarchies have tried ad failed can be see throughout the world, perhaps one of the most famous happened in Russia where the Zar was overthrown by his own people. This proves along with many other examples that often times, dictatorships are not the way in which to run a society; democracy is needed to keep peace and promote equality and fairness in a society. While human beings by nature do need guidance we do not need dictators.
