<u>This portion of the text shows Hobbes supported an absolute ruler:</u>
- <em>Men are continually in competition for honour and dignity . . . and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground, envy, and hatred, and finally war. ... No wonder if there be somewhat else required, besides [contract], to make their agreement constant and lasting; which is a common power to keep them in awe and to direct their actions to the common benefit.
</em>
- <em>
The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another . . . is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will.</em>
Further detail:
Thomas Hobbes published a famous work called Leviathan in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes' view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). Hobbes' view of the natural state of human beings without a government held that people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. And so people willingly enter a "social contract" in which they live under a government that provides stability and security for society.
To protect the Spanish territory from the French :)
Answer:
Explanation:Bismarck's celebrated foreign policy consisted of a complex set of agreements meant to keep all the other powers perpetually off balance. Austria, Italy, and Russia were embraced in German alliances, thus denying their support to French plans for revenge and containing their own rivalries with each other.
Answer:
Explanation: The Shays insurgents claimed they were fighting for liberty as they did in the Revolution while the governor and other political leaders saw it as tyranny. The political leaders saw this as a threat to government and to the security of life and liberty. Additionally, there were former veterans fighting on both sides. Thomas Jefferson, while away in France, thought that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing". He thought it was necessary for the health of the government. (Actual answer)
