careful in his political person to procure the common interest, yet he is more careful to procure the private good of himself" (Hobbes, 120). Here Hobbes shows that in monarchy, as opposed to democracy, the rulers private interests are closely related to the nation's public interests. Hobbes' support is simple: The King is represented by his subjects, therefore, if the nation does not thrive, neither does the ruler. In spite of this reasoning, Hobbes is wrong. He backs his argument without any valid statements, instead acting as if his own authority is enough evidence. In rebuttal, for a king to be lavish, why must his country also? Couldn't the monarch abuse his subjects, and take from them all he pleases? The monarch France during the rule of Louis XIV proves that a King has no qualms about living ostentatiously, even while his nation suffers from poverty. Simply put, 100,000 people can easily cater to one. Here Hobbes' point is negated, for it is not thought out fully.
             The next point Hobbes' makes favoring monarchy is the ease of receiving advice. Hobbes states, "A monarch recieveth counsel of whom, when, and where he pleaseth, and consequently may hear the opinion o men versed in the matter about which he deliberates, of what rank or quality soever, and as long before the time of action, and with as much secrecy, as he will" (Hobbes, 120). Simply put, a monarch ruling by himself does not have to heed to the call of others, rather, others heed to him. Though this point might seem valid, for informational advice is of utmost importance when one rules. Hobbes, however, does not see the downside to his argument. What if the monarch at of ignorance of a certain subject denies the advice of knowledgeable councilors? Because he has the power to hear anyone he wishes he has also the power not to hear. Thus, his subjects are not always able to voice their ideas. Furthermore the fact that he does not have any deadlines to ...