Johanes de Silentio Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 **********WARNING - REACTIONARY THREAD********** In Leviathan, (1651) Thomas Hobbes argued that, rather than live in constant fear of a brutal death, and live a life that was ?nasty, brutish, and short?, citizens should grant total control to a single individual in return for the protection of the state. The main criticism of Hobbes?s Social Contract theory is that, while the citizens are no longer at risk of threat from each other, they are forever at the mercy of the sovereign ? the Leviathan, who has been granted absolute power. In effect, they have swapped a life of fear of each other for a life that is dictated by the whims of a sovereign ruler. Heart of Midlothian handed total control of the club to Vladimir Romanov for the promise of financial security (and success) that would ensure the future of the club and its home ? Tynecastle. Arguably, we have swapped the fear of having to leave Tynecastle (which may still happen) for the position we are now in, which is fine when Romanov is of a mind to be benevolent to the club. However, because Romanov has absolute control, we are forever at the mercy of his whims. Any thoughts, other than ?what a load of pretentious shite?? Is Romanov our Leviathan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kolya Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 'Nasty, brutish and short' sounds more like Dennis Wise in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Any of our previous owners have had this "Godhead" mantle. Going by some on here, there seems to be some fallacy perpetuated that we, the fans, have had an active say in the running of "our" club. Complete nonsense, of course. Like many other businesses, we've always been controlled by a majority shareholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossmaroon Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 **********WARNING - REACTIONARY THREAD********** In Leviathan, (1651) Thomas Hobbes argued that, rather than live in constant fear of a brutal death, and live a life that was ?nasty, brutish, and short?, citizens should grant total control to a single individual in return for the protection of the state. The main criticism of Hobbes?s Social Contract theory is that, while the citizens are no longer at risk of threat from each other, they are forever at the mercy of the sovereign ? the Leviathan, who has been granted absolute power. In effect, they have swapped a life of fear of each other for a life that is dictated by the whims of a sovereign ruler. Heart of Midlothian handed total control of the club to Vladimir Romanov for the promise of financial security (and success) that would ensure the future of the club and its home ? Tynecastle. Arguably, we have swapped the fear of having to leave Tynecastle (which may still happen) for the position we are now in, which is fine when Romanov is of a mind to be benevolent to the club. However, because Romanov has absolute control, we are forever at the mercy of his whims. Any thoughts, other than ?what a load of pretentious shite?? Is Romanov our Leviathan? A very well-written and thought-provoking post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilnunb Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 'Nasty, brutish and short' sounds more like Dennis Wise in my opinion. or Ian Black if you'd believe the Glasgow media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 A very well-written and thought-provoking post Boris makes a good point, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Boris makes a good point, though. Darn tootin'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Bill Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Indeed, as supporters, we enter into a social contract with Vlad up top. A fairer, if slightly unrealistic constitution would be to follow Rawls' 'veil of ignorance', outlined in A Theory of Justice; whereby Vlad would design the running of the club from top to bottom, completely unaware of what impending position he would undertake within it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMc Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 You have to envy the Barca fans for the way in which they are directly involved in choosing the direction of their club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.