<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.
1) ariel spying over Cuba produced pictures that showed missile silos being built in Cuba. The design of the silos made it clear they were designed for missiles, and it made no sense for Cuba to put in anything less than nuclear missiles there. Missiles they could not build themselves, so had to come from the Soviet Union.
2) Only minutes. A launch from the Soviet Union to the US only takes about 20 minutes. Depending on the range of the missiles put into the silos, warning time would have been anywhere from 3-10 minutes. Not enough time to verify that it was a launch, and not a detection system malfunction, forcing America to launch immediately, or risk losing its capacity to strike back.
3) A direct attack or invasion of Cuba would have forced the Soviet Union to respond in kind. The USSR simply could not abandon Cuba, without losing all credibility among its allies and vassal states. So they would likely have struck back at the US, probably in Europe. This would have dangerously escalated the tensions, and increased the probability of nuclear war. Other officials believed that a quick,determined strike would not only eliminate the immediate threat of missiles in Cuba, but possibly overthrow the regime and force the USSR to accept the situation. The idea of a naval blockade was a compromise position. A threat of force, but one that allowed the USSR to back off. After all, so long as the missiles were not put into the silos, they were no threat.
The espionage and sedition act of 1918. The Sedition Act of 1918 was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offences, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.<span />
Not giving her seat up to a white man or a segregated bus. It sparked a lot of conflict which led to peaceful protest.
