Thomas Hobbes in the History of thought about the State and Law "De Cive" and "Leviathan" - Bellum omnium contra omnes and its three properties
Biography of Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes is the great thinker of state and law from England.
Thomas Hobbes lived in 1588-1679.
Thomas Hobbes lived in an era of absolute government under Charles I and Charles II in England.
This is also the case with the governmental system in several other countries.
For example Spain under the rule of king Philip II. Also French.
This state of absolutist governmental system was defended by Thomas Hobbes.
In the sense that Thomas Hobbes accepts the situation and reality as a state and a natural fact, then this is explained and given the legal bases to strengthen the situation and reality.
Thomas Hobbes in the History of thought about the State and Law
Its contribution is a large materialistic system, which includes organic and spiritual life. This means that the goal of life, namely happiness, can only be achieved by means of competition, by movement.
As for the means for achieving happiness are power, wealth, good name or greatness of person and friends.
Meanwhile, the biggest power for human interest is the state.
His teachings are written in two of his most famous books, namely: "De Cive" (about citizens) and "Leviathan" (about the state).
As a follower of the flow of natural law, Thomas Hobbes, in explaining or describing his teachings, is based on the human condition before the existence of the state, so it is still in a natural state, where humans live in a state of free nature without any ties, in this condition. they are called human in abstract.
In this human state in abstract, humans are always hostile to each other, consider each other to be opponents, and fear each other that the other human will overtake and will get more praise than himself.
Bellum omnium contra omnes and its three properties
So there is always resistance or warfare one against one, one against everyone, everyone against everyone. This situation is called : Bellum omnium contra omnes, where everyone always shows his desires that are truly egotistical.
So in that situation there is no understanding of just and not fair at all, while what applies is only human passions.
Because for justice there must be regulations that regulate and measure human action. This means that there must be a maker of rules or laws, so that means there must also be a state.
How is it now possible to move or transition from a state of being completely free, without rules, so from a natural state like the aforementioned to a state of being totally bound, and regular, so to that state of being ?
The state of Bellum omnium contra omnes certainly has something to do with it.
This condition causes none other than that in abstracto humans already have certain characteristics, namely :
- Competitio, Competition, competition. This means that the human is always competing to overcome other humans, because of the fear that he will not get praise. In terms of competing, they can use any means. This gives rise to a second quality, namely,
- Defentio, defend, defend or defend yourself. This means that humans do not like to be controlled or overcome by others. Because humans always have the desire to dominate other humans, this defensive nature is a guarantee for their safety. This leads to,
- Gloria. This is the quality of desire to be respected, respected and praised.
These three characteristics are still possessed by humans since humans are born, and constantly overshadow humans to inflame their desires, and these three characteristics are what always cause tensions, and if this tension has peaked it erupts into resistance or war, then manifested then bellum omnium contra omnes.
But fortunately, humans are actually afraid of the bellum omnium contra omnes, because in addition to these three characteristics, humans still have other characteristics, which cause the three characteristics not to be carried out, because the last three characteristics can only be carried out in peaceful state.
Three barrier properties of Bellum omnium contra omnes
- Fear of death.
- Want to have something.
- Want to have the opportunity to work in order to have something earlier.
So with these three characteristics, Bellum omnium contra omnes cannot be realized, because they really want that among humans there is peace, and not only enmity.
For the implementation of this peace, according to Thomas Hobbes, the humans then entered into an agreement, which was called a community agreement, to form a society and then a state. Where everyone in the country can work to have something and is not always life threatening.
The agreement is binding based on the provisions of natural law, but even so, people sometimes still want to deny it, because of human traits that are competitio, defensive and gloria.
In the above community agreement, the objective of which is to form society and subsequently the state, the main objective is to carry out peace. Here everyone, with no exception, must give up freedom based on that nature, and it is considered fair if all people do so and then obey the agreement.
In the community agreement, they also appointed a ruler who was entrusted with carrying out the peace.
This ruler, the name of the king, has absolute power, because the king does not receive power from the society that has been established by the agreement, but the king immediately receives power from the people who make the agreement.
So the king in the community agreement is not a party, is not a party, but is outside the agreement.
It should first be remembered that Thomas Hobbes' covenant theory was different from other theories that had existed up to that time.
According to Thomas Hobbes, the agreement is a community agreement, it is direct, meaning that the people who carry out the agreement directly surrender or give up their rights or independence to the king, so not through society, the king is outside the agreement, so he is not a party to the agreement. thus the king is not bound by the agreement, and has power. the absolute. Meanwhile, the cause of the agreement itself is the fear that exists in every human being that his safety is always being threatened. So the binding is fate.
According to Marsilius, the agreement is a submission agreement between the ruler or king and the people. It is multilevel in nature. This means that the people who carry out the agreement surrender their power to the society they form, then this society will give that power to the king. So thus the sovereignty remains with the people, the king only exercises that power. Meanwhile, the reason for the agreement itself was that Marsilius wanted to show the power of the state and prove that the State had a higher position than the church.
According to Johannes Althusius, the agreement is an agreement of submission. Its nature is multilevel. This means that in the agreement the people surrender their power to their unit, namely the people. These people then entered into an agreement with the king to enforce the law, while the people promised to obey. The highest power remains with the people, as well as the right to make laws. So if the king violates the law the people can remove the king, if necessary by force and force. The reason for the agreement itself is that Althusius wanted to emphasize that the highest sovereignty or power rests with the people.
According to Grotius, the name of the agreement is a community agreement, it is multilevel. So hand over the power of those who carry out the agreement to the king through society. The reason for the covenant itself is that according to Grotius humans are social creatures. So there is always a desire to live in society (appetitus societatis).
Furthermore, according to the opinion of other natural law scholars, after we know his teaching, we will now continue to discuss the teachings of Thomas Hobbes.
In the community agreement (this is Thomas Hobbes' covenant of society), the transfer of rights from individuals to society is concluded, except from the king, remembering that the king here does not participate in the agreement. Thus according to Thomas Hobbes, because the king was not a party in the agreement, the king had no promises, let alone bound by the agreement, the king's power. is absolute.
The king can do anything, even if he is allowed to kill, as long as this is for peace which is the goal of the people's agreement, so it is also the goal of the state. If the king acts against the law, it cannot be said that the king is guilty, or violates the rights of others, or violates the covenant of society itself, because the king is not responsible to anyone.
At most, it is only considered that the king sinned against God, but not against the state or society or people or individuals.
Because the king is outside the parties or (parties) that entered into the agreement. This was the juridical rationale for the absolute king's power.
Compare with the teachings of Niccolo Machiavelli and the teachings of Jean Bodin. In addition, there is another reason or basis for the absolute king's power, namely the goal of the agreement or the goal of the state itself is peace. Based on this, according to Thomas Hobbes it is not true that the power of the ruler or king is limited.
Because if the power of the ruler or king is limited, then there will always be problems, namely the question of boundaries itself.
The problem is :
- By what power will the ruler or king be limited?
- To what extent are the restrictions on the power of the ruler or king?
Which problems will certainly always lead to debates in the community or the state, if these debates cannot be resolved, they will certainly lead to contradictions, if these conflicts have peaked, they will erupt into or lead to wars, this war will certainly threaten the implementation of peace.
Therefore, the power of the ruler or king does not need to be limited, let it remain, absolute or absolute.
This absolute king's power covers all aspects of life in society, both worldly and spiritual in nature or beliefs, for example matters of religion.
So it can be said that humans have no personality anymore, because it turns out that individual freedom is very limited, that is, limited only to things that have not been regulated by the king, while in principle the king can arrange anything to carry out peace.
Thomas Hobbes is a religious believer, Thomas Hobbes believes in God, so he is not an atheist.
But Thomas Hobbes's opinion regarding the relationship between the state and the church is that the church is one with the state and the king is the leader of the churches with absolute power.
The difference between Thomas Hobbers and Niccolo Machiavelli, Jean Bodin and Grotius
So the difference with Niccolo Machiavelli is, if Niccolo Machiavelli separates religion from thinkers about state and law, while Thomas Hobbes places thoughts about the state and law above religion.
The difference with Jean Bodin's opinion is also sharp, namely that even though the country has the highest sovereignty or power, this sovereignty is still limited by the laws of God and the laws of Nature.
Meanwhile, according to Thomas Hobbes, the king's sovereignty is above everything and includes everything, it has even been said that the king is also the leader of the church.
The difference with Grotius is also seen in that according to Grotius the states are interconnected with one another and the glue is natural law, whereas according to Thomas Hobbes the states are completely separate and live in a natural state where each should defend themselves against the other as best as possible.
The principle or basis of Grotius 'teachings is that humans are in a natural state or humans are in a state before there is a state or humans in abstracto which are basically social in nature, and the basic or basic principle of Thomas Hobbes' teachings is that humans are also in a natural state, but basically it is anti-social, was united by Samuel von Pufendorf, and which was later used as the basis of his teachings.
Because Samuel Von Pufendorf in describing his teachings used this way of thinking, he could not use the opposite point.
