Plague of Inequality CHAPTER THREE Thomas Hobbes “TOO MUCH ABUNDANCE”

Hobbes is likely the least egalitarian of all the thinkers considered by Williams (2024).  Also, Hobbes was prone to favor not only vertical wealth but vertical power systems.  After Hobbs, seemingly more patterned after Rule of Men systems in contrast to Rule of Law:  “It is only when individuals fear the Leviathan that peace—the object of all individuals in the state of nature—becomes possible. Because once they fear the sovereign power, that sovereign can then legislate and enforce laws. And law facilitates peace (p. 111).” Hobbes seemed to believe the Sovereign could build and bring ethical law into play. Not likely.

The Market economy was starting to emerge around the time of Hobbes.  Things like rapid increases in the price of grain --- the latter a main source of food on which the ordinary people depended --- gained attention. It led to the call for the just price, an ethical price.  Thinking of Figure 1 as representing isoquants in production, the production of grain on path 0G without regard for the shared interest in everyone having an adequate diet on path 0M could lead to an unjust price.  The just, ethical price would emerge on some path 0Z. As DIT makes clear, the ethical price (the price with justice) cannot in general arise on the self-interest only path 0Z.

Wages also stagnated during the time of Hobbes, employers favoring path 0G.  Again, using Figure 1 for inputs and isoquants, the wages paid labor would be more reasoned and higher on some path 0Z, reflecting the shared interest with the other being more considered. It was also the time --- in the early-1600s --- of the enclosure of lands, with common grazing lands no longer available.  People were economically stressed, poverty abounded, and Hobbes noticed. 

It would come to be that Hobbes saw the inequality as the state of nature, as in a hierarchy of wealth and the power it buys.  Political Scientist Macpherson, a Canadian, especially makes said case. Williams is not as sure, claiming Hobbes was actually quite concerned about inequality. Others also claim Hobbes was all in on a libertarian state, with minimal influence by the Government. For more on MacPherson, see the Blog on integrating the two main "isms."

Williams claims Hobbes was actually quite concerned with extreme inequality, especially the deeper moral and ethical considerations for the larger society.  Too much concentration causes a system to flirt with demise: “Insofar as subjects can acquire limitless fortunes, according to Hobbes, they become insolent and presumptuous of impunity, eventually rising to threaten sovereign authority.” Concentration of wealth in the hands of few would lead to political instability, and often to war.  Monopolies were common: The more open, competitive Market had not yet evolved. The feudal lord who had fed and housed the peasants was being replaced by the monopoly paying wages, and often enough was moved down the income ladder. The landed and merchant were doing just fine: The labor, not so much.

Mandeville pointed to the rapidly increasing population, which driving grain (food) prices and rents for housing.  Stagnant wages set by local justices of the peace did not help.  Laborers could not readily move from one employer to the other, as movement was regulated to keep wage earnings down. Labor in the 1600s was doing less well than the pre-market times of the 1500s.  Hobbes noted the plight of the working poor, with extremely low, barely survival wages.

The rising merchant class also got into finance, charging interest --- substantive interest, later capped at 10-percent.  Ironically, the inequality became even greater than under the feudal system.  Thousands of laborers working a barely survival wages filled the factories. But, the monarchy, too, was being challenged by the landed gentry and the merchants.  Political power was being shifted with the help of wealth.  Ordinary people, however, were being left behind. Yet, the Government did grant the monopoli wealth  was also concentrated in the politically powerful.  Taxes also had to be raised, and “ship money” --- a tax on merchant ships became a target. The English Civil War, in effect between the wealth merchants and the monarch, led to all manner of chaos, in which Hobbes wrote the Leviathan.

Hobbes' “state of nature” envisioned no Government.  Everyone is equal. But, it deteriorates quickly, as individuals start to compete over the resources.  A state of war is the outcome: and the “ …life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 13.9) (pp. 110).

Why? It is the inherent --- evolved over the millenia --- egoism of all Humans.  Evolution also makes clear it has to be bounded, tempered, in empath-based tempering. In contrast to Mandeville who wants to release it, Hobbes sees the need to bound and constrain it. Greed is not good, at least not extreme (pleonexia) greed.  To Hobbes, only Government  --- the Leviathan --- can do the tempering. It is done through the Rule of Law. Hobbes saw natural law, as in the search for law to bring peace. It is the peace that is all important, and, extreme inequality assures it cannot happen, so, the Government must alleviate the extreme inequality. Poverty assured war, as people would be wanting to try a different system, one that worked better for everyone, with essentially nothing to lose.

Poverty took away dignity.  It would lead to stealing and begging. It had no redeeming features. Poverty led to weak armies. It led to resentment and envy. It emboldened the poor to commit crimes. It brought rebellion. Hobbes even pointed to Thomas Aquinas who had claimed necessity justified some thievery.  It became moral and ethical with severe necessity.

Hobbes was also not happy with the wealthy, especially the wealthy who felt deserving. Pretentiousness and vulgarism come to rule.  “The wealthy are vain and arrogant; they tend to reduce the value of things to their cash value; they assume their superiority over others; they are selfish, lack self-control, and express a lust to dominate others; they assume that they, above all others, know best how to rule on account of their riches (p. 115) … also engenders arrogance—the wealthy think themselves wiser than others (p. 116)… (leads to rebellion) …  wealthy perceive taxation as an affront for which rebellion is the natural response (p. 117).”  The wealthy also come to believe in being above the law, not subject to the law affecting ordinary people. The greed of the wealthy undermines the Government.

Factions seeking narrow self-interest adversely affected the common good.  Factions became the source of sedition, and civil war. James Madison had read Hobbes:  Factions were to be kept at bay in the new US.  Also, not unrelated to the matter of paying taxes:  “… inequality’s factious nature, for Hobbes, manifests in the reluctance of the wealthy to pay their taxes” s3nn(p. 121).  The poor also, then, become enraged from the rich not participating in supporting the larger system. “The presumptions of the rich thus inspire violence among the poor (p. 121).  Envy and resentment always at play.

Intriguing, too, Hobbs claimed no individual really had any right declare some public good effort as evil, or some such.  Instead, each person had some obligation to the sovereign, who made judgments about what was in the public good. Problem is: Hobbes seemed to believe the sovereign could do no wrong. Yet, the wealthy can also stir another kind of problem, not responding appropriately to the sovereign, e.g., not paying land taxes in the claim the land is private, when in fact the sovereign gave the land in the first place.

Hobbesian Solutions

Redistribution of property was the sweeping solution. The problem was the need to rebalance property and power. “Hobbes specifies that property should be distributed and redistributed according to ‘equity and the common good’ (p. 126).” Another solution was public charity, i.e., social safety nets.  And, such things were important because extreme inequality “… fosters envy, resentment, factions, and ultimately sedition and civil war… (p. 127)” so some property and wealth redistribution --- some balancing ---  was essential:  “… property should be distributed according to equity, peace, and security; and given that significant economic inequality fosters envy, resentment, factions, and ultimately sedition and civil war…” In DIT terms, optimal inequality had to be found, in order to avoid the downside of extreme inequality. And, it was part of natural law to operate in a state of optimal inequality, framed by  “ …. every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.”  The wealthy tended to operate with too much unfounded pride of the success of wealth.

Basically, Hobbes banned pleonexia, a feature of the arrogant, and, if it came into play, the Leviathan --- strong Government --- needed to do some thing about it.  As DIT makes clear, path 0G of pleonexia, especially when near or on the vertical axis had to be addressed, else the system would crash. It led not only to self-ruin, but to the ruin of the larger economic and social system.  Banning the pleonexia and arrogance was essential to peace, in a stable economy & society.  The Econ needed to fear the Leviathan.

As Williams summarizes Hobbes:  “First, one should recall that for Hobbes the proud and arrogant are often very wealthy. Second, he connects the wealthy’s larger fortunes to their sense that they are above the law. Third, he attributes to the proud and arrogant a tendency to ‘judge a state to be badly governed which is not governed as they themselves wish’ (p. 131).”  Tempering such behaviors of the Econ was essential.

Hobbes also saw the need to address the fact the wealthy have tendency to be contumely, i.e. using abuse, insult, revilement and vilification to become and then justify being wealthy. Being contumely violated natural laws. The notion of being contumely described the insolence by the wealthy and resentment by the poor.   Said somewhat differently:  “Natural egoism is magnified by wealth and power; and that wealth and power inclines them to act even more selfishly, expressly against the natural laws, even where those laws uphold the society that nurtures them (pp. 131-132).”  Natural egoism would also command the poor without adequate access to and benefit from the economic system.

Hobbes was realistic in that mere mortals would not necessarily do the best thing.  Hobbes suggested three measures.  First, acknowledge the existence of an immortal God, which called for the Econs needing to become Humans and practice almsgiving to the poor.  And, said giving need to be orders of magnitude larger than mere small gifts, suggesting a substantive role for the Leviathan, a God supported creature that demanded more than mere alms. Second, extreme inequality had to be tempered, using the power of the Leviathan. It was a responsibility of the Government to address the extreme inequality. Third, education was to play a key role. The Econs could not just be controlled, but also had to be educated as to the problems of extreme inequality.

Conclusions

Williams brings the understanding of Hobbes’ claims about extreme inequality to a close with:  “In his Second Treatise on Government, the philosopher John Locke objected to Hobbes’s absolute monarchs since ‘absolute monarchs are but men.’ In other words, if humanity is as selfish and violent as Hobbes depicts it in the state of nature, how would it make any sense to then grant all the political power to a single one among them? This objection, among other observations, has been at the foundation of the doctrines of separation of power and checks and balances, both of which Hobbes opposes (p. 133).”

And, in fact, extreme inequality also not only affected the poor, but also the Government:  “… (it)  is important to recall, for Hobbes, that much of what worries him about concentrated wealth and inequality is the threat it poses to sovereign power. Those with enormous fortunes, such as the emerging merchants of the seventeenth century, represented legitimate competitors for sovereign authority in Britain. The sovereign’s wealth, by contrast, does not represent a threat in this respect (p. 133-134) … greatest threat posed by sovereign wealth is likely wealth’s effects on one’s character—the fostering of a sense of impunity. This could theoretically detach the sovereign from its obligation to heed the laws of nature (p. 134).” 

And, overall:  “Inequality is not simply a problem for those committed to the ancient virtues and their associated religious systems … is also a problem for peace and a threat to modern sovereignty …  not merely a problem because it blocks the path to a virtuous life or to the love of God. Poverty is not just a problem because it can make people hungry. Wealth is a problem because it inspires the wealthy to seize power for themselves. Poverty is a problem because it inspires insurrection. Inequality is not just a moral problem. It is, for Hobbes, fundamentally political, demanding political interventions … lowered ambitions of Hobbes’s philosophy did not render inequality irrelevant—they merely offered new reasons to worry about it (p. 134).” Yes: The Leviathan of the Government is essential, albeit the Econ is also essential. It is about striking balance in Market & Government.