When we enter the contract we give up the right to resist. Hobbes has much optimism that the king will act in the benefit of the people. He bumumes that the ruler wants a powerful and rich society so he can live well, as does our current system of politics. It is proposed that our leaders are acting in our best interest to better the country because it benefits their country. Just as the king is a benevolent parental figure who makes his decisions out of loving best interest of the state, so is the representative. Some of us believe no politician loves up the this, some believe few live up to this, and some believe whatever candidate the support lives up to this. What is seen as important however, is that the representative being perceived as loving his the country he is administrating. This is clearly evident in any electoral race, and large chunks of speaking time is spent declaring and redeclaring his patriotism. It’s fascinating to me that it seems that on one level, love of country is bumumed among leaders. Sometimes a representative might openly question another’s patriotism, but usually this is left to a supporter, with the effect of getting dirty work done without getting dirty. It is often seen that this kind of discourse is used as a distraction tactic to avoid other issues.

Even if a ruler, be it king or representative, rules poorly, it is implicit in Hobbes theory that it is better to be under a bad rulership than the dangerous and unpredictable State of Nature. In the State of Nature we have no bumurances of any future actions, and therefore can do little to prepare for them. In a bad rulership, at least we have better understanding of future possibilities, even if they are consistency bad ones, and adapt and adjust for them.

This is an important proposition that must maintain widespread credibility. The worse off one perceives oneself to be in the State of Nature, the more he is willing to give in the negotiation of the contract. This is interesting, because in Hobbes, the contract is between the government and the people, and the king as executor of the government, is outside the contract, which is why his actions are above the law. An interesting sentiment to have expressed for one of the founding fathers of modern political philosophy, especially if we compare it certain sentiments of Machiavelli.

For Machiavelli, or of the least for his the ruler his is addressing in the prince, the most important thing is to maintain power, eve more than to maintain the stability of the state. So for a Machiavellian ruler, the social contract would be a great legitimating tool for his continued rule. He gets the befit of living in society without being inside the contract, while using the contract as a legitimation for his power. If the society becomes unstable, and the contract insolvent, the contract empowered him with enough resources to survive, if not attempt to draft new continent. (509)