o an ultimate power that effectively limits all others, but which is unlimited in its own right. In essence, Hobbes claims, a government comes into existence only with the appointment or institution of a ruler with absolute power - a power that effectively transcends all others, and over which there is no appeal.His argument sets out to demonstrate that civil society can be truly unified only when the state incorporates a single validating authority (a single human decision-maker) beyond which no subject can appeal. It is claimed that Hobbes is possibly in error in this respect, because he apparently fails to recognize that the final decision-maker need not be a single human being, but could comprise a group of decision makers, such as a parliament with a set of clearly entrenched rules or laws. However, it could be claimed that Hobbes does not explicitly recognize, in his political writings, a divided sovereignty or a government with a human ruler constitutionally limited by laws that are terminus ultimus. The other argument successfully justifies absolute sovereignty only insofar as it includes a vitally important theorem: That is, because human beings are unable to establish any substantial co-operation among themselves and, in particular, are unable to agree on any rules of private property, no law or set of laws can be the final decider in a political regime. And this means that a human being or an assembly of human beings must act in this capacity. Hobbes denies that a state can rest on a set of ultimate moral rules that serve to limit the ruler's power, and act as the ultimate authority in that political regime. He argues that the hypothetical laws of nature are not strong enough to act as final determinants in a civil society, because they are not specific enough to act as definitive and precise guides for the government of a commonwealth. Hobbes also rejects contemporary and modern theorists who claim that it is possible to ...
