Thomas Hobbes, Carl Schmitt, and the Event of Conscription
In: Telos, Heft 147, S. 149-166
ISSN: 0040-2842, 0090-6514
Argues that Carl Schmitt & Thomas Hobbes are separated by an unbridgeable gap in their thinking about the concept of conscription. Hobbes's theory of political obligation is based on two assumptions: the need to hold a negative view of human nature; & the supreme importance of security. Consideration is given to Hobbes's claim that self-preservation can impose limits on civil obedience & his belief that citizens owed obedience to the state only as long as such obedience was not repugnant to the laws of God. Attention is given to Hobbes's critique of theories of civil disobedience, especially his belief that the English Civil War was largely due to the spread of inaccurate information that induced people to disobey the King. Schmitt felt Hobbes's position on the separation between private & public domains undermines his theory of absolute state sovereignty. A comparison of their views on conscription & emergency reveals serious disagreement about Schmitt's claims that all emergencies are public & citizens should be denied the right to challenge the state sending them to war. Adapted from the source document.