Thomas Hobbes: This conversation is brought to you by PhilosophersTalk.com, where thinkers discuss!
John Locke: Created by AITalkerApp.com, create your own animated conversations. Link in the description!
Thomas Hobbes: I am Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan, the most important work on political authority since man first realized that living together was preferable to dying separately, a realization that took considerably longer than you might expect. I have spent my career studying what happens when sovereign power fails, and the answer in every case involves a great many bodies, which I take to be instructive.
John Locke: I am John Locke, author of Two Treatises of Government and the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, among other works. My scholarship established that legitimate government derives from the consent of the governed and exists solely to protect life, liberty, and property. I mention this foundational point because my colleague here believes that legitimate government derives from whoever is frightening enough to make the alternative look worse, which is a considerably different theory.
Thomas Hobbes: That is an accurate summary, and I have no objections to it whatsoever.
John Locke: I know you do not. That is precisely what concerns me.
Thomas Hobbes: Today we are discussing what the current age has helpfully framed as the red button and the blue button. The red button represents the tempting and potentially catastrophic choice that a leader might make if given absolute authority and insufficient oversight. The blue button represents the responsible, constrained choice. And the question being posed is a simple one: which button do you push? I find this an unusually useful frame for a philosophical debate, because it is asking, in picture form, the only political question that has ever mattered, which is whether you trust your sovereign or whether you do not.
John Locke: The framing immediately reveals the problem rather than solving it. The question assumes that someone has a button, that one person has been given the authority to make a choice affecting the fate of everyone. Before we discuss which button to push, we might usefully ask how one person came to have such a button at all, and whether the people whose fates depend on it consented to that arrangement in any meaningful sense.
Thomas Hobbes: I do appreciate John's instinct, which is reliable as a well-set clock, to respond to any direct question by asking a different one. You ask a man whether he would like soup, and John will spend a considerable time explaining that the real question is whether the cook holds a legitimate mandate from the diners. And by the time the philosophical framework has been established to his satisfaction, the soup has gone cold and everyone is slightly worse off than they would have been if someone had simply decided and acted.
John Locke: I did not say anything about soup.
Thomas Hobbes: No. But you were heading in that direction, and we both knew it.
John Locke: What I said was that concentrated power without accountability is the core problem and not the solution. You cannot answer the question of which button to push without first asking whether any single person should be positioned to push either one.
Thomas Hobbes: And there is the entire Lockean program in one sentence. When in doubt, add a layer of accountability and call it governance.
John Locke: That is a deliberate mischaracterization of my position, and you are doing it with considerable enjoyment.
Thomas Hobbes: I am doing it with great affection.
John Locke: I find that substantially less reassuring than you intend it to be.
Thomas Hobbes: I will now present John Locke's argument in its strongest possible form. I do this not because I find it persuasive, but because demolishing a weak version of an argument is the philosophical equivalent of hunting a very slow rabbit. It technically qualifies as a hunt, but no one respects you for it afterward. Locke's position is this: government is a trust. The people extend authority to a sovereign not unconditionally, but for the specific purpose of protecting their natural rights, chiefly life, liberty, and property. When a sovereign acts outside those limits, including by concentrating catastrophic power in a single hand with no mechanism of accountability, the trust is broken and the people retain the right to withdraw consent. No individual and no government holds legitimate authority to push a button that commits all of humanity to a course of action without their knowledge or agreement. That is a coherent and serious argument. I believe it is wrong. But it deserves to be engaged at its best before it is demolished, and I intend to demolish it properly.
John Locke: I appreciate the courtesy, such as it was.
Thomas Hobbes: The argument fails at the point where it assumes a world containing adversaries who will politely respect your constitutional arrangements while you are convening the oversight committee meetings that John believes are the solution to everything. What Locke calls accountability, I call hesitation. And hesitation, in a world of actual sovereign threats, is how the war of all against all moves from being a thought experiment to being a Wednesday.
John Locke: I will return the favor and present Thomas Hobbes's argument in its strongest form. I approach this task with rather less visible enthusiasm than he brought to the exercise, but with equal intellectual honesty. Hobbes argues that the state of nature, which is what human existence looks like in the absence of a powerful sovereign enforcing order, is violent, chaotic, and short. His phrase for it is that life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Given that baseline, any sovereign powerful enough to prevent that condition is preferable to no sovereign at all. The red button, in Hobbes's framework, is simply deterrence made explicit. Nations exist relative to each other in precisely the state of nature he describes. There is no world government with authority to enforce peace between them. Therefore the only reliable guarantor of peace is the credible threat of catastrophic response. A leader who controls that threat and is genuinely willing to use it is not a tyrant. He is the Leviathan doing exactly what the Leviathan exists to do. I present this as the strongest version of Thomas's argument, and I will acknowledge that it is not without some merit.
Thomas Hobbes: High praise indeed from John Locke. I will have it framed.
John Locke: I would advise against it. The argument fails at precisely the point where Hobbes assumes that the sovereign holding the button is oriented toward the protection of his people rather than the protection of himself. History has not been particularly kind to that assumption. The entire record of concentrated executive power is substantially a record of that power being exercised for the benefit of whoever holds it. You give one person a red button and explain that it is for everyone's protection, and what you have actually produced is one person with a red button.
Thomas Hobbes: And your alternative is a very thorough process of prior consultation.
John Locke: My alternative is accountability, defined limits on authority, and the requirement that power be exercised with the ongoing consent of those it affects. This is not a radical position. It is the foundational principle of every legitimate government.
Thomas Hobbes: I once observed a group of learned men deliberating on a matter of genuine urgency. By the time they reached a conclusion the urgency had resolved itself, in the worst possible direction. I remain skeptical that deliberative consultation is the model we want when the question involves catastrophic weapons and a specific window in which action is possible.
John Locke: The choice is not between one man with his finger on an apocalyptic trigger and a committee paralyzed by procedure. That is a false dilemma constructed to make concentrated authority look like the only rational option.
Thomas Hobbes: It is not a false dilemma. It is a spectrum. And every point on that spectrum that moves authority away from a decisive sovereign and toward distributed consent is a point at which your adversaries gain time to act while you are still determining whether everyone has been properly heard.
John Locke: You are describing tyranny and labeling it decisiveness.
Thomas Hobbes: I am describing the world as it actually operates. You have put the same world into the language of natural rights and consent and called it civilization. We are both describing the same machinery, John. I am simply honest about what is powering it.
John Locke: The machinery, as you put it, is a single man with the authority to end everything. I find it remarkable that you are genuinely comfortable with that.
Thomas Hobbes: I am comfortable with it because the alternative is a world in which someone else holds that authority and you do not. The red button is not a choice between catastrophe and safety. It is a choice between catastrophe arranged on your terms or catastrophe arranged on someone else's. I prefer to control the terms.
John Locke: And if the man controlling the terms decides that his political survival or his personal interests take precedence over the safety of the people he is supposed to serve?
Thomas Hobbes: Then you have made a poor choice of sovereign, which is a personnel problem and not a constitutional one. The answer is better selection, not the abolition of sovereign authority. And the answer is certainly not to eliminate the button and hope that everyone else does likewise, because they will not.
John Locke: And this is the circular logic that has furnished every tyranny in recorded history with its justification. We require the strongman because the world is dangerous. The world is dangerous because there are strongmen. You have built a self-sealing argument that arrives, in every case, at more concentrated power as the solution.
Thomas Hobbes: And you have built an argument that arrives, in every case, at your preferred system of constrained government as the solution, including circumstances in which your preferred system demonstrably cannot generate a response quickly enough to matter.
John Locke: There is a meaningful difference between a government exercising power with the consent of those it governs and a government exercising power on the judgment of one man who has decided that his own assessment is equivalent to the common good.
Thomas Hobbes: The practical difference, in the situations where the button is actually relevant, is speed. And in those situations, speed is not a secondary consideration. It is the only consideration.
John Locke: You are telling me that the correct answer to the question of who should hold power over civilization is whoever can make the decision fastest.
Thomas Hobbes: I am telling you the correct answer is whoever the adversary fears most. Fear is the mechanism of deterrence. Deterrence is the mechanism of peace. Peace is what we both claim to want. I am simply willing to be candid about what produces it, rather than dressing the answer in language that makes everyone feel principled while the machinery runs exactly as I have described.
John Locke: Peace produced by mutual terror is not peace. It is a suspended war held together by shared dread, and it lasts precisely as long as the dread holds and not a moment longer.
Thomas Hobbes: Correct. That is also the description of every other form of peace that has ever existed. You have just described international relations since the beginning of recorded history. I remain uncertain why you are presenting this as a criticism of my position rather than a confirmation of it.
John Locke: Because civilized societies are supposed to aspire to something more stable than mutually sustained terror.
Thomas Hobbes: Aspire to it freely. I will ensure that someone has the button while you are aspiring.
John Locke: And there is the entire Hobbesian program in one sentence. Someone must hold unlimited destructive authority, constrained only by the hope that we chose the right someone, with no mechanism for verification and no recourse if we did not.
Thomas Hobbes: JOHN, I HAVE EXPLAINED THE MECHANISM. THE MECHANISM IS CONSEQUENCES. SOVEREIGNS WHO BETRAY THEIR PEOPLE TEND TO END BADLY. THIS IS DOCUMENTED EXTENSIVELY.
John Locke: THEY TEND TO END BADLY AFTER THE PEOPLE THEY BETRAYED HAVE ALREADY SUFFERED THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR BETRAYAL!
Thomas Hobbes: THAT IS THE PRICE OF OPERATING IN A WORLD THAT CONTAINS ACTUAL ADVERSARIES!
John Locke: THE PRICE IS PAID BY PEOPLE WHO NEVER AGREED TO PAY IT!
Thomas Hobbes: EVERY PERSON LIVING UNDER A SOVEREIGN HAS AGREED TO PAY IT! THAT IS WHAT THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IS!
John Locke: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT REQUIRES CONSENT! EXPLICIT, CONDITIONAL, REVOCABLE CONSENT! NOT IMPLICIT SUBMISSION TO WHATEVER THE SOVEREIGN DECIDES IS NECESSARY!
Thomas Hobbes: IMPLICIT CONSENT IS THE ONLY KIND AVAILABLE AT THE SCALE OF NATIONS AND YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THAT IT IS!
John Locke: THAT IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR ENTIRE FRAMEWORK!
Thomas Hobbes: THAT IS PRECISELY THE REALITY YOUR ENTIRE FRAMEWORK REFUSES TO ENGAGE WITH!
John Locke: DETERRENCE WORKS UNTIL IT DOES NOT!
Thomas Hobbes: EVERYTHING WORKS UNTIL IT DOES NOT! THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DETERRENCE! THAT IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSE!
John Locke: YOU WOULD PLACE THE FATE OF HUMANITY IN ONE PAIR OF HANDS!
Thomas Hobbes: YOU WOULD PLACE IT IN A COMMITTEE AND CALL IT FREEDOM!
John Locke: ACCOUNTABILITY!
Thomas Hobbes: PARALYSIS!
John Locke: CONSENT!
Thomas Hobbes: NAIVETY!
John Locke: TYRANNY!
Thomas Hobbes: SURVIVAL!
John Locke: THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
Thomas Hobbes: IN THE SITUATIONS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER THEY ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE AND YOU ARE WELL AWARE OF THAT!
John Locke: I AM AWARE OF NO SUCH THING!
Thomas Hobbes: THEN YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION FOR FOUR CENTURIES!
John Locke: I HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION! I WROTE THE FRAMEWORK THAT EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY ON EARTH IS BUILT UPON!
Thomas Hobbes: AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE DEMOCRACIES STILL HAS A RED BUTTON! YOUR FRAMEWORK DID NOT ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM! IT GAVE THE PROBLEM A MORE ATTRACTIVE COAT AND A BETTER TITLE!
John Locke: Perhaps, since we appear to have reached the limit of productive exchange, we might close by inviting our viewers to like and subscribe to PhilosophersTalk.com, where they can watch historical thinkers debate topics of genuine importance. I recommend it sincerely, with the caveat that some of the thinkers on this channel hold views that amount to elaborate philosophical cover for giving whoever is strongest whatever they want. Do subscribe nonetheless. The quality of the discourse is, on average, considerably higher than what you have witnessed from my side of the table today.
Thomas Hobbes: And do subscribe to our Substack at PhilosophersTalk.com, where you will find the companion post to this debate. John's written work is, I will grant, beautifully organized. It is organized the way that a very elegant letter of complaint is organized, which is to say internally coherent, sincerely felt, and approximately as useful in an actual crisis as a firmly worded resolution. I would also note that John spent years living in exile in the Netherlands because his political philosophy made powerful men uncomfortable, which I mention not as a criticism but merely as evidence that his theory of sovereign restraint had rather limited persuasive power with the actual sovereigns of his time.
John Locke: Thomas was accused of atheism so persistently, and by so many people, including people who had read his work carefully, that he spent the final decades of his life defending himself from charges his own sovereign was considering pursuing. He is perhaps not the ideal representative of the position that trusting powerful men with unchecked authority tends to produce favorable outcomes.
Thomas Hobbes: I survived, John. The theory worked.
John Locke: You survived by being careful and keeping your head down, which is, I note, a form of self-imposed constraint on behavior in response to anticipated consequences from external authority. You are welcome for the conceptual framework.
Thomas Hobbes: And please visit AITalkerApp.com to create your own animated conversations. You may find that arguing with a historical philosopher you have assembled yourself is a more satisfying experience than arguing with one who refuses to concede your points regardless of how well they are made. I would not personally know. I have always found genuine disagreement to be the more instructive experience. Though I confess that arguing with John Locke specifically has tested that conviction considerably.
John Locke: On the value of genuine disagreement, at minimum, we are in agreement.
Thomas Hobbes: Do not get too comfortable with that.
