I have to write a paper supporting this argument: Thomas Hobbes' idea for an absolute monarchy was one that would result in tyrants and dictators oppressing their people. Basically he thought that the only way for citizens to be civil and keep law and order was to have a king whose with absolute power. I have to argue that this is not a good idea, I was planning on using examples of other leaders who were given that kind of power and abused it. So if I could get a few names I would be forever grateful to the Pit. Also if anyone has any other ideas on how to support that that would be nice but not necessary.
Wow this is weird. I just finished writing a paper on Locke.
E-married to ilikepirates

Quote by bloodtrocuted93

How are you so fucking awesome at music?

Quote by Spoony_Bard
Wow this is weird. I just finished writing a paper on Locke.

Haha very strange. I was originally going to choose Locke but Hobbes seemed like a better choice to me.
Well he wasn't entirely wrong, it's easy to imagine that laws will not be upheld without some level of coercion. If I were you, rather than going after the fact he favored absolute monarchy I'd analyze how his theories regarding the state (commonwealth as he calls it) are essentially the basis of most modern government systems, particularly with regards to the idea of a single head of state to guaranty decisive action when needed, and a strong judicial branch to uphold the civil peace.
By making that analogy you can also look at the failings of modern government systems, and how the give room for abuse of power (those closer to Hobbes thinking) or how they can lead to chaos (those further from it).

Just out of curiosity, did you actually read the Leviathan?
Absolute Monarchy can work..
Look at Dubai for example...

Edit: Disregard this... Dubai is a constitutional monarchy
I mean Saudi of course
Last edited by Cianyx at Feb 27, 2009,
you can use pretty much anyone who ever had an excess of power... not necessarily just a monarchy. look at some of the czars of russia, hitler is an obvious choice but overused, saddam hussien, some of the war torn countries of africa would be great i think... they always have a tyrant running around cutting down people
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

—Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address
I'd think war torn places and societies would be good for showing how people would rather subject themselves to the rule of a cruel leader rather than face a "state of war" single-handedly , and that's what Hobbes defended.