Pros And Cons Of Thomas Hobbes

1067 Words5 Pages
To a real estate developer, seemingly pro-landowner legislation like the property rights bill sounds attractive. Yet, Dan Gordon opposes to such legislation because they would undermine environmental regulations, threaten homeowners’ property values while only benefiting the few large landowners. On one hand, John Locke would enable him to defend his argument by asserting that the government must work towards not the particular few but the common peace and prosperity. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes would brush that argument aside, stating that as a subject Gordon has no right whatsoever to question the decision of a sovereign with absolute power over its realm. Gordon’s argument comes twofold. First, he believes that government’s environmental regulations are essential to the public good, benefiting “not only the environment but also the homeowner” (Gordon). By creating zoning laws “designed to prohibit incompatible uses” in some areas and imposing safety standards to limit pollution, the government protects the ecosystem and preserves its sustainable development (Gordon). Since home value ultimately depends on the…show more content…
Detesting the state of nature when “every man is the enemy to every man”, he envisions an infallible sovereign that people would “confer all their power and strength upon” (Hobbes, 85, 100). He would be the ultimate owner of all property, and have “incommunicable and inseparable” power to do what is necessary to preserve and defend the commonwealth (Hobbes 103). Hobbes particularly loathes dissenting opinions that may challenge the sovereign’s authority, stating that “if there had not been an opinion received of the greatest part of England that these power were divided […], the people had never been divided and fallen into this Civil War” (Hobbes 104). He develops a “right of sovereign” to check any objection or complaint against the sovereign’s absolute

More about Pros And Cons Of Thomas Hobbes

Open Document