What would you do if your neighbor was always out to kill you and nobody could stop him? How could you protect your livelihood during lawlessness? These are questions posed by philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan, but how does he tie in this state of chaos with the rule of a Leviathan monster, equal to nobody on Earth? Today we try to answer that, by reading his book Leviathan and explaining his argument for absolute monarchy on the grounds of man's natural state.

Thomas Hobbes is an English philosopher who lived during the English Civil War (1642–1651) between the parliament and the king. Rendered cynical by his war-torn reality, he began his book by describing the state of nature of mankind, nature without any kind of leadership.

The state of nature for Hobbes was a state of lawlessness and chaos. Without any government organizing this individual hunt, mankind is to compete for things it needs for survival, such as food and shelter.

And while good and evil are relative to Hobbes, the greatest evil is one for everyone: the fear of violent death. Thus is the constant fear of anyone that their neighbor would use force to steal the resources necessary for survival. Because everyone wants to attack before the other does, this results in a war of all against all, where each person battles everyone for survival. No knowledge or industry can exist, and mankind lives short brutish lives. 

Humanity thus needs strong unyielding leadership to unite it and organize it, to prevent the state of nature from taking over. Enter the Leviathan, inspired by the powerful sea monster of the same name in the book of Job in the Bible, whose massive body is as big as 300 people and "nothing on Earth is its equal". (Job 41:33)

But only absolute monarchy is strong enough to be this Leviathan. Not only is the rule of one more convenient than the rule of some (Aristocracy) and of all (Democracy), only a king can see his own private benefit as one with the public benefit. No king is rich if the kingdom is not so their benefit is one, but multiple rulers prioritize private benefit and fall corrupt.

Thus is the basis of Hobbes' social contract political theory: to escape the brutish state of nature, everyone gives up their individual freedom and authorizes the one king to take handle their matters in exchange for protection and organization.

The theory has been long influential in history, as the social contract shaped the centuries that followed. But many critiqued Hobbes: Is there no real desire in man's nature for us to prosper together? Is not the desire for peace itself goodness?

And why absolute monarchy but not a small government that is chosen by the people and supervised to avoid despotism?

While the state of nature is not thought of much anymore, the question of the ruling system is increasingly answered with democracy worldwide. But even if the government is elected, philosophers like Hobbes make us ask: what should the limits of the government's power be? Where do we draw the line between individual freedom and the public benefit?