Luke Ford

I’m not a capital supremacist. The national interest is more important (meaning the survival, safety, security and dignity of its citizens is more important than the interests of billionaires). The supremacy of shareholder capitalism allowed Apple to build up America’s greatest rival – China.

Conventional economic models don’t take into consideration the balance of power between states.

The effective state smashes groups that stand in the way of the national interest, be those groups billionaires, environmentalists, or labor.

I admire the ruthlessness of this Trump administration, while simultaneously understanding the dangers.

The national interest is more important than individual rights and classical liberalism.

I stand with Hobbes (we need government to be a leviathan to protect us in a dangerous world) over Locke (the state of nature encourages us to make contracts with each other).

The more negative your view of human nature, the more likely you are to be Hobbesian. The more optimistic your view, the more likely you are to be Lockean.

Grok says:

Your position aligns with Hobbes’ view that a strong, centralized authority is essential to maintain order and security in a world where human nature leans toward conflict. Hobbes argued that without a Leviathan—a powerful government—society would descend into a “war of all against all,” where individual rights and contracts, as Locke emphasized, would be meaningless due to insecurity and distrust. Prioritizing national interest over individual rights reflects this belief that collective stability trumps personal freedoms when survival is at stake.

Locke’s perspective, rooted in classical liberalism, assumes a more optimistic state of nature where individuals can form rational contracts to protect their rights, with government serving as a limited referee. Your stance rejects this, likely seeing it as naive in a dangerous world where threats—internal or external—require a unified, decisive response.

In geopolitics, Hobbes’ philosophy resonates with state-centric approaches prioritizing security and national interest, often at the expense of individual rights or international cooperation. Locke’s ideas, conversely, underpin liberal democratic ideals, emphasizing universal human rights and multilateral agreements.Global Power Competition and Authoritarian Regimes (Hobbesian)Context: The rise of great power competition—particularly between the U.S., China, and Russia—illustrates a Hobbesian world where states act as Leviathans to secure their survival. For example, China’s centralized governance under the Communist Party prioritizes national stability and economic dominance, often suppressing individual freedoms (e.g., censorship, surveillance in Xinjiang). Russia’s actions in Ukraine (2022–present) reflect a Hobbesian pursuit of territorial security and influence, disregarding individual rights in occupied regions.

Hobbesian Relevance: These regimes align with Hobbes’ view that a strong sovereign is necessary to prevent chaos. In a world of competing powers, national interest—defined as territorial integrity, economic strength, or military dominance—takes precedence. Hobbes would argue that without a global Leviathan, states exist in a “state of nature,” where mutual fear drives aggressive policies. The absence of a supranational authority, as noted in the Yale Law Journal, reinforces this, with states relying on “mutual fear” for temporary peace rather than trust-based contracts.

Lockean Counterpoint: Locke’s framework, emphasizing individual rights and consent, struggles here. Liberal democracies advocate for human rights sanctions or interventions (e.g., UN resolutions against Russia), but these often lack enforcement power. Locke’s optimism about rational cooperation falters when authoritarian states reject the premise of universal rights, prioritizing sovereignty over individual liberties.

International Institutions and Human Rights (Lockean)Context: Institutions like the UN or International Criminal Court (ICC) embody Lockean principles, aiming to protect individual rights through consensual agreements among states. The UN Declaration of Human Rights or Geneva Conventions reflect a social contract at the global level, where states agree to limit their sovereignty to uphold universal norms.

Lockean Relevance: These frameworks assume states can rationally agree to protect life, liberty, and property, as Locke envisioned in domestic contracts. For instance, NATO’s collective defense pact is a Lockean contract where member states consent to mutual protection, balancing national interest with individual security.

Hobbesian Critique: Hobbes would view these institutions as weak without a global sovereign to enforce compliance. States like China or Russia often flout ICC rulings or veto UN resolutions, reinforcing Hobbes’ skepticism about contracts in the absence of a higher authority. The “anarchy” of international relations, as realists describe, mirrors Hobbes’ state of nature, where national interest trumps collective agreements.

Case Study: U.S. Foreign Policy Post-9/11

Hobbesian Shift: Post-9/11, the U.S. adopted a Hobbesian approach, prioritizing national security over individual rights. The Patriot Act (2001) expanded surveillance, compromising privacy for collective safety. Drone strikes and Guantanamo Bay detentions prioritized national interest over due process, reflecting a Leviathan-like response to external threats.

Lockean Resistance: Critics, invoking Locke, argue these policies violate consent and natural rights. The ACLU’s lawsuits against surveillance or Guantanamo highlight a Lockean demand for government accountability to protect individual liberties. Yet, ongoing threats (e.g., terrorism, cyberattacks) sustain Hobbesian arguments for strong state power.

Analysis: In geopolitics, Hobbes’ Leviathan better explains the behavior of authoritarian states and security-driven policies in an anarchic world. National interest—security, economic power, sovereignty—often overrides individual rights when states perceive existential threats. Locke’s framework thrives in cooperative frameworks like NATO or the EU but struggles against non-compliant powers. Your Hobbesian stance aligns with the realist view that a strong state is essential in a world where global governance lacks teeth.

Domestic Policy: Security vs. Individual Freedoms

Domestically, the tension between national interest (stability, public safety) and individual rights (privacy, free speech) plays out in debates over surveillance, law enforcement, and public health.

Surveillance and Privacy (Hobbesian)Context: In the U.S., programs like PRISM (revealed by Snowden in 2013) and China’s social credit system exemplify Hobbesian governance, where the state prioritizes security and social order over privacy. The U.S. justifies mass data collection to combat terrorism, while China uses surveillance to enforce compliance, citing national stability.

Hobbesian Relevance: Hobbes would approve of these measures, arguing that a Leviathan must have unchecked power to prevent internal chaos. In his view, individual rights are secondary to the state’s duty to protect citizens from threats, whether crime, terrorism, or dissent. The “constrained” vision of human nature, akin to Hobbes, supports strong legal frameworks to control self-interested behavior.

Lockean Counterpoint: Locke’s emphasis on consent and natural rights fuels resistance. Privacy advocates argue that surveillance violates the social contract by undermining liberty without transparent justification. GDPR in the EU, rooted in Lockean principles, prioritizes individual data rights, requiring state and corporate accountability.

Public Health and Mandates (Hobbesian) Context: COVID-19 (2020–2023) saw governments worldwide impose lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and mask requirements, prioritizing collective health over individual choice. In the U.S., states like New York enforced strict measures, while others (e.g., Florida) resisted, citing personal freedom.

Hobbesian Relevance: Hobbes would support mandates as a Leviathan’s duty to protect citizens from a common threat. National interest—public health and economic stability—justifies overriding individual rights to refuse vaccines or masks, especially when non-compliance risks collective harm.

Lockean Critique: Lockean critics, including libertarian movements, argued that mandates violated consent and natural rights. Protests against lockdowns (e.g., Canada’s Freedom Convoy, 2022) echoed Locke’s view that government overreach, even for public good, requires justification through the consent of the governed.

Law and Order vs. Civil Liberties (Mixed) Context:

Debates over policing in the U.S. (e.g., Black Lives Matter, 2020 protests) highlight the Hobbes-Locke divide. Calls for “law and order” (e.g., Trump’s 2020 campaign) reflect Hobbesian demands for a strong state to curb violence and looting. Conversely, demands for police reform emphasize Lockean rights to life and liberty, arguing that state power must be checked to prevent abuse.

Hobbesian Relevance: Hobbes would prioritize state authority to restore order, viewing civil unrest as a step toward the state of nature. Policies like stop-and-frisk or militarized policing align with his call for a sovereign to enforce stability.

Lockean Relevance: Locke’s influence is evident in reform movements advocating for accountability (e.g., body cameras, defunding police). The U.S. Constitution, rooted in Lockean principles, protects against arbitrary state power, supporting arguments for systemic change.

Analysis: In domestic policy, Hobbes’ Leviathan resonates when governments face crises (pandemics, unrest) requiring swift, centralized action. National interest—public safety, order—often justifies limiting rights, aligning with your view. However, Locke’s legacy in democratic systems ensures pushback, as citizens demand transparency and consent. The balance tilts toward Hobbes in authoritarian states or emergencies but toward Locke in liberal democracies with strong legal protections.

Broader Implications and Synthesis

Hobbes’ Strength in a Dangerous World: Your preference for Hobbes holds in contexts where existential threats—war, terrorism, pandemics—demand decisive state action. Modern geopolitics, with its power rivalries and weak global governance, mirrors Hobbes’ state of nature, where national interest trumps individual rights. Domestically, crises amplify the need for a Leviathan to enforce order, as seen in surveillance or health mandates.

Locke’s Resilience in Democracies: Locke’s ideas thrive in stable democracies where consent and rights are institutionalized. The U.S. Constitution, EU human rights laws, and global institutions reflect his belief in rational cooperation and limited government. However, these frameworks falter when trust erodes or threats escalate, exposing their reliance on mutual agreement.

Contemporary Tensions: The Hobbes-Locke divide frames debates over balancing security and freedom. For example, India’s Constitution, as noted in Sociology Notes, balances Hobbesian state power with Lockean rights, reflecting ongoing tensions between federal control and civil liberties. Globally, the rise of populism and authoritarianism suggests a Hobbesian resurgence, as citizens trade freedoms for perceived stability.

A negative view of human nature—seeing people as selfish, conflict-prone, or chaotic—aligns with Hobbes’ belief that a strong, centralized Leviathan is necessary to prevent a “war of all against all.” Conversely, an optimistic view—seeing humans as rational, cooperative, and capable of self-governance—supports Locke’s emphasis on individual rights, consent, and limited government. Let’s analyze how this spectrum of human nature applies to modern geopolitics and domestic policy, building on the prior discussion, to test its explanatory power.

Human Nature and Geopolitics

Pessimistic View

(Hobbesian)

Context: States like China and Russia operate on a Hobbesian assumption of human (and state) nature as self-interested and prone to conflict. China’s strict social controls, including the social credit system, reflect a belief that individuals, left unchecked, will undermine collective stability. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) assumes a zero-sum world where trust is scarce, and power must be secured through force.

Application: Leaders with a negative view of human nature prioritize national interest—security, sovereignty, economic dominance—over individual rights or international cooperation. For example, China’s censorship assumes citizens will spread dissent without state intervention, mirroring Hobbes’ view that humans in the state of nature are “nasty” and “brutish.” This pessimism justifies a Leviathan-like state to enforce order, as seen in mass surveillance or territorial assertions in the South China Sea.

Evidence: Realist international relations theories, rooted in Hobbesian logic, dominate geopolitical strategy. The absence of a global sovereign, as noted in the Yale Law Journal, creates a “mutual fear” environment where states act as Leviathans to survive, distrusting others’ intentions.

Optimistic View (Lockean)Context: Liberal democracies and international institutions like the EU or UN reflect Locke’s optimism that humans (and states) can cooperate rationally for mutual benefit. The EU’s integration, based on shared economic and human rights principles, assumes states can form consensual contracts to limit sovereignty voluntarily. NATO’s collective defense similarly trusts members to honor commitments.

Application: An optimistic view supports frameworks prioritizing individual rights and multilateralism. For instance, the Paris Climate Agreement (2015) assumes states can trust each other to reduce emissions for collective good, a Lockean contract rooted in rational cooperation. Human rights advocacy, like Amnesty International’s campaigns, reflects belief in universal moral capacity, aligning with Locke’s view of humans as capable of upholding life, liberty, and property.

Limits: Optimism falters when trust breaks down. Russia’s violation of international norms in Ukraine or China’s rejection of UN rulings on the South China Sea expose the fragility of Lockean cooperation in a world where some actors view human nature pessimistically.

Analysis: A negative view of human nature drives Hobbesian policies in geopolitics, as states prioritize survival over trust. Your Hobbesian stance, favoring national interest, aligns with this pessimism, seeing global anarchy as necessitating strong state power. Locke’s optimism underpins liberal frameworks but struggles against actors who reject cooperative assumptions, reinforcing your preference for Hobbes in a dangerous world.

Human Nature and Domestic Policy

Pessimistic View (Hobbesian)Context: Domestic policies like mass surveillance or strict law enforcement reflect a Hobbesian distrust of human nature. In the U.S., the Patriot Act (2001) and NSA’s PRISM program assume individuals might exploit freedoms to harm the collective, justifying state overreach. China’s social credit system takes this further, presuming citizens will act against national interest without constant monitoring.

Application: A negative view supports policies prioritizing national stability over individual rights. During COVID-19, governments imposing lockdowns or vaccine mandates (e.g., Australia’s quarantine camps, 2021) acted on the Hobbesian premise that individuals, left to their own devices, would spread chaos or disease. This aligns with your view that a Leviathan is needed to protect society from itself.

Evidence: The “constrained” vision of human nature, as described in philosophical debates, underpins Hobbesian governance. States assume self-interest drives behavior, requiring a strong sovereign to enforce compliance, as seen in militarized policing during U.S. protests (2020).

Optimistic View

(Lockean)

Context:

Democratic institutions and civil liberties protections reflect Locke’s belief in human rationality and moral capacity. The U.S. Constitution’s checks and balances assume citizens and leaders can govern themselves through consent, not coercion. Movements like Black Lives Matter or privacy advocacy (e.g., GDPR in the EU) trust individuals to demand accountability and uphold rights.

Application: An optimistic view supports policies empowering individuals over the state. For example, decentralized responses to COVID-19 in some U.S. states (e.g., Florida’s resistance to mandates) reflect Lockean faith in personal responsibility. Free speech absolutism, championed by figures like Elon Musk on X, assumes humans can handle open discourse without state intervention.

Limits: Optimism is challenged when individual actions threaten collective good. Anti-vaccine movements during COVID-19, fueled by distrust, led to higher mortality rates, validating Hobbesian arguments for state control. Similarly, unchecked free speech on platforms can amplify misinformation, prompting calls for regulation.

Analysis: Domestically, a pessimistic view of human nature justifies Hobbesian policies in crises, aligning with your prioritization of national interest. Locke’s optimism drives democratic norms but falters when individual freedoms clash with collective needs, reinforcing the need for a Leviathan in unstable times.

Synthesis: Human Nature as a Predictor

Your statement—that a negative view of human nature predicts Hobbesian leanings, while an optimistic view predicts Lockean ones—is strongly supported in contemporary contexts:

Geopolitical Trends: The rise of authoritarianism (e.g., China, Russia) and security-driven policies (e.g., U.S. post-9/11) reflect Hobbesian pessimism, viewing humans as prone to conflict without strong control. Lockean optimism persists in cooperative frameworks but is undermined by non-compliant states.

Domestic Trends: Crises like pandemics or unrest amplify Hobbesian responses, as governments assume humans will act selfishly without enforcement. Lockean optimism shapes democratic resistance but struggles when individual rights threaten collective stability.

Cultural Shifts: Public sentiment, as seen on X, often splits along these lines. Pessimistic voices advocate for strong leadership to curb chaos (e.g., calls for law and order), while optimistic ones defend freedoms (e.g., anti-censorship campaigns). If you’d like, I can search X for specific posts to gauge current attitudes.

Conclusion

A negative view of human nature strongly correlates with Hobbesian policies prioritizing national interest and state power, as seen in authoritarian regimes, surveillance, and crisis responses. An optimistic view supports Lockean emphasis on rights and cooperation, evident in democracies and multilateralism, but it’s less resilient in high-stakes contexts. Your Hobbesian stance, favoring a Leviathan in a dangerous world, aligns with the pessimistic view that humans require strong governance to avoid chaos.