e either poor, or contemptible, or too weak (through want or dissension) to maintain a war against their enemies, whereas in a democracy, or aristocracy, the public prosperity confers not so much to the private fortune of one that is corrupt, or ambitious, as doth many times a perfidious advice, a treacherous action, or a civil war (Hobbes 120). The king or queen decides everything for the good of the people. This has to be true, because if the people are not well, the king will not be well. If the king was corrupt, he would only benefit for a certain amount of time and his people would suffer. Eventually, he would suffer along with them. Essentially, everyones lives are intertwined. Another example of why Hobbes prefers monarchies instead of other forms of governments is ability of monarchies to enact legislation without too much gridlock. In governments where there are assemblies that are needed to make decisions, they can be inefficient and never reach an agreement, case in point, our U.S. government. It is a model of inefficiency. For example, when a bill is being made and it is approved by the House of Representatives it is passed on to the Senate. If the Senate approves it, it is passed on to the President for approval. If he signs it, it becomes a law. Now for what happens in reality: The House and the Senate usually never agree on any bill because of differences in their political agendas. If by some miracle both sides agree on a bill, it is sent to the President. Today, the House and Senate are dominated by the Republican majority while the President is a Democrat. So, what usually happens in this day and age is, the President will veto the bill. It is simply because of differences in the party line(s). According to Hobbes, all of this stupidity can be avoided imply with one monarch. He does not need a Congress or any other representative body to make his decisions for him. He also would not need them make bills or approve anyt...
