Great addition to the discussion.

But do they smell the same.

A same socks relationship

Perhaps to help get the attention of those not otherwise Listening.

@@JPT1965 That tends to beg the question 'Why would anybody apart from amateur borderline foot fetish fashionistas choose to waste X minutes of their time when there are many things that 'everyone ought to do' ('The very thought of your socks' by Ray Nobbley toes 1933).

😂​@@peteratkinson922

I don't like him.

Hobbes nail boots.Wa wa wa wah!

Great addition to the book discussion.

Yes!! I’m reading War & Peace after I finish Vanity Fair. I’m really excited for it!

I just finished War and Peace at 51 years old. I loved it ❤. I joined a book club to read it and it really helped

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ebp9i5d0lpydkps.html kzfaq.infosB2I1SNA_EE?feature=share

Doesn't matter, what they think is meant to be why they are talking.

@@tessalister1226 Why so grumpy, dear?

Haha it's PragerU dotted socks, perhaps given for marketing...implicit marketing. Hahaha

Try De Cive (on the citizen) instead of Leviathan. Leviathan was truly a sentimental work used to instigate curiosity. A more philosophical account is found in De Cive. Although you will not find the elements of Christianity (part 3-4 of Leviathan) much in the book.

No, they're not. Hobbes failed in his project; we have in the UK exactly what he was fighting against. The same is true in Canada, Australia, and NZ. The constitutional monarchies have the parliament with most Sovereign's infrangible powers, and the Monarch (Charles for now) is just a ceremonial yet dormant power holder. The powers are distributed, but the status quo also, in this empirical description, proves Hobbes wrong. We do not have clashes with both the parliament and the monarch (who got some sovereign power): there is always a compromise and ground-talk. If anything, Hobbes was right about the existent State of Nature among the Sovereigns: the Realism in IR

@@utsavkaushal_ Hobbes contention was that there is no inherent right to revolution, this is absolutely the case in Uk,Can, Aus, NZ. The Crown is the rightful, lawful, authority and cannot be changed through any revolutionary processes. This is fundamentally different to the Lockian approach which asserts a right to revolution embodied by the American revolution. In British civilization the prerogative of the monarch is absolute, but constrained by convention. In this sense Hobbes is the basis of British civilization and its constitution order.

Interesting...BUT. 1. It was not Hobbes' argument. He did not concern himself with specific aspects of what people/soveregin should or should not do, akin to Machiavelli's approach. Hobbes did provide an idea of what is criminal and what is sinful, but never in isolation of mere social/political efficiency. His sole aim was to defend absolute sovereignty and no revolution against would be a part of that. 2. Hobbes never used the word "Revolution" anywhere in his Elements, De Cive, or Leviathan. Instead, he used the more direct term Rebellion. This difference is significant, as a revolution tends to carry more symbolic weight, with the use of force being secondary to the intended message. (The distinction between revolution and rebellion is often misunderstood.) Thus, Hobbes would be least concerned with the principles of the American Revolution. For Hobbes, it was a mere rebellion. Then he would argue that it is SINFUL (not criminal) against sovereignty, i.e., that the rebels are not subject to punishment from the Sovereign but are its enemies. However, once the Americans establish the new Sovereignty, the covenant is supposed to be given to the American government, which now becomes their protector. It's important to note that when Charles II became king, Hobbes did not say, "Here is the heir of sovereignty," but instead stated, "Here is your new protector." Because a King is not someone who innate the sovereignty, but is a sovereign because he can protect all. So, the term "revolution" would be an unconventional (I doubt absurd) term, and Hobbes would consider it all mere Rebellion, which DOES HAVE A RIGHT: when the sovereign fails to adequately protect the citizens. 3. Once again, it was not Hobbes' aim to define political terms based on practical ethics or their feasibility in the abstract. Hobbes was solely concerned with absolutism, which he ultimately failed to achieve. The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all precisely what Hobbes did not want them to be.

Utter nonsense. For Hobbes there is only one right: that of self-defence.

@@gloriapatria7439 You never read leviathan then, did you. Don't embarrass yourself

@@MrDogsledder "The Right of Nature, which writers, commonly call 'jus naturale, is the liberty of each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto." Leviathan 14.1 Just a thought: try debating the issue rather than instantly resorting to ad hominem. Hard work though, eh?

Duelists too had a sovereign power in the form of an impartial referee. See 'Life and Death of Colonel Blimp' for example.

If the other guy did why worry? Maybe we are all a little worried?

Clever? intelligent? Tea?

Elect another President then.

Then why are you here?

Well, okay. But these books, or rather these ideas, will chase you down like the hound of hell (or heaven). Run fast!

That's a shame, reading is fundamental. More knowledge is definitely needed in the world.

Why read a book when you could be blissfully ignorant?

No one knows about him, I'd hardly call that overrated

You seem to be a Hobbes savant. How so?

Only by those who have never experienced the State of Nature, which is pretty much everybody who lives the West.

Often happens to revolutionary thinkers...

Have to give at least a few words as to why you come to that conclusion.