While looking at past and present governments that have constructed the globe, one wonders what exactly are the benefits and consequences of each, and which is the best. Hobbes believes the best is Monarchy. A single ruler provides the ease of governing, and with this ease comes a nation's greatness. However, through close examination of Hobbes' opinions, it is obvious that although he makes valid points, he creates them theoretically, not practically. The writings in Leviathan critically point out that monarchy is in fact less superior to another form of government: democracy.
             When thinking of monarchs, numerous images come to mind. Throughout time, nations have chosen different styles of monarchy, each of which has succeeded to different extents. Therefore, when taking a critical stance against Monarchy, it is important to remember the terms denotation, making sure not to expand the term to fit today's meaning. By doing this, the term is in control, and thus cannot be molded into a form it is not. Hobbes, in Chapter 19 of Leviathan, defines this term well. Monarchy is the representation of a commonwealth by a single ruler. This is the only requisite. There need not be officials underneath the monarch; the ruler does not need to be wealthy, or even a citizen of the country. Granted the power of his citizens, he consequently makes all their national decisions. He is their sole representation. Still, let the fact be known that the ruler need not make decisions in the best interests of his country, has the ability to make those both beneficial and detrimental.
             Now that the definition of Monarchy is set, Hobbes' reasoning can be examined, criticized, and lastly, refuted.
             Hobbes first point about monarchy is that the sole monarch, as with men in any type of assembly, is still a biologically selfish person. He will put the needs of him and those close to him before the needs of others. As Hobbes says, "Though he be care...