hobbesian

But some people think the Hobbesian PoV means outlawing strong encryption is exactly what the government should do.

As Rayiner has correctly noted more than once, in international affairs the world is ultimately a Hobbesian state of nature.

The issue is sovereignty; relations between nations remain stuck in a place very close to the Hobbesian state of nature.

This is the essence of the Hobbesian approach - Vigil is has unlimited power over the programmer's code.

Hobbes is hugely influential, but the 'truth' of the Hobbesian state of nature isn't debated at all.

We all enjoy living in a degree of stability, as opposed to a Hobbesian state of nature.

The Hobbesian model of freedom sanctions sovereign violence solely for the purpose of keeping the peace.

Historically, governments have never been an altruistic entity that helps people; rather, it has always fulfilled the Hobbesian need for order.

In a finite pie model, yes, there's a Hobbesian war of all against all.

It's a perfectly reasonable explanation of how to avoid an Hobbesian free-for-all.

Sidenote because I agree with the main thrust of your argument, but: > A very Hobbesian view of society, I see.

Yet, given the recent utilitarian turn of your comments, I doubt that a Hobbesian analysis was the basis for the claim.

Assuming we're talking about the Hobbesian "state of nature" then yes, of course you do have that freedom.

"Vigil must delete itself." [The Hobbesian rebuttal] 1.