Eric Yost wrote: "Hence your conclusion that a 'belief' led to a social change puts a heavy cart before a stubborn ox. What you call the 'Hobbesian state of nature' encouraged the belief, rather than vice versa." The issue is not what leads to social change, a description of which would surely be a difficult if not impossible task, but rather the conditions that make particular social changes possible. According to Hobbes, people, through the use of reason, recognize the advantage that comes through giving up some of their natural rights, in order to form a commonwealth. This formation of a commonwealth requires a belief both in human rights and the rule of law. These beliefs do not lead to the formation of a commonwealth, as though history were solely or primarily a trail of beliefs and ideas, but a commonwealth is not possible without the presence of these beliefs. Yes, the specter of the Hobbesian state of nature prompts rational people to search for alternatives, but these alternative political arrangements require beliefs concerning what is possible. And so there are rational people asking whether there is a possibility for escaping a Hobbesian state of nature between countries through the formation of various global institutions that are constituted according to commitments to human rights and the rule of law. I think it is possible and desirable, though certainly not a necessity of history. Sincerely, Phil Enns Yogyakarta, Indonesia ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html