Asher Sisneros

Asher K. Sisneros

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Western Civilization From 1493

September 23, 2024

Absolutism was a rising political theory in the West during the 16th century. Monarchs favored it to justify the expansion of their power. But where absolutism thrived in one nation, constitutionalism gripped another. Thus the two competing philosophies warred, both on the battlefield and in the hearts and minds of scholars. Of those scholars who defended absolutism, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was at the forefront of the battle, and his magnum opus, Leviathan, is still in print today. 

Similar to John Locke, Hobbes bases his arguments for absolutism on the state of nature. In Leviathan, he says humans are constantly at war with each other, since there is no absolute standard of morality or institution to enforce it. Furthermore, individuals pursue their self-interests, which may include actions that modern society considers criminal: theft, murder, rape, etc. In his words: 

Hereby it is manifest that, during the time [when] men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.¹ 

Supposedly, in the state of nature, individuals believe it is in their self-interests to attack other people, and violence pervades this hypothetical society with no monarch. Thus anarchy and violence are commonplace.

Hobbes deserves some sympathy in advocating for some form of civil government to define laws and enforce them, but it seems ludicrous to see the benefit of civil government with the fallible (sinful) race of men, and then conclude the only remedy is despotism. However, that is precisely what Hobbes does. In his words, “Where there is no coercive power erected,…there nothing is unjust.”² Is there really no form of justice without coercive power? Bogus. Utter lies! All men are born with the law of God written on their hearts. Justice exists in the mind of God. Whether they completely submit themselves to His sovereign decree, as written in His Word, is another question. But to say there is no justice without coercive power is completely absurd. 

What is worse, Hobbes says there is no law apart from the king. He does not say there is no common definition of justice via a written law, as the constitutionalists argue; he says:

The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are…the two cardinal virtues.³ 

This is the backbone of the divine right of kings doctrine, which is the backbone of absolutism. The divine right of kings is a theological-political doctrine that, as the name suggests, says kings receive their authority divinely from God and exercise power on His behalf. Insofar as that goes, the doctrine is correct. However, absolutists then conclude the king has absolute temporal sovereignty and can do no wrong; moreover, any resistance—even resistance by a lesser magistrate—is rebellion against God. In other words, according to absolutism, the king does not just enforce the law. He is the law. 

1. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Excerpts), Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom, https://libertyclassroom.com/lessons/absolutism/ ↩︎
2. Ibid ↩︎
3. Ibid ↩︎