Hobbes' Sovereign and Impunity

Hobbes defines the formation or creating of the Leviathan as “the only way to erect such a common power… to confer all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or Assembly of men, to bear their person… and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgments, to his judgment” (XVIII). The Leviathan stands as the common will or rule that all consent to in accordance with the noble pursuits of peace, profit and human prosperity. It is the same rule that specifically enjoys privileges, most importantly of, impunity. Against the sovereign, “one, cannot lawfully make a new covenant, amongst themselves, to be obedient to any other, in any thing whatsoever, without his permission,” and “none of his subjects, by any pretense of forfeiture, can be freed from his subjection.” All actions of the sovereign are by social contract deemed subjects’ own; “because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a sovereign” even “he that dissented must now consent with the rest” (XIX). Hobbes outlines in the Leviathan a system of governance where “because every subject is by this institution author of all the actions, and judgments of the sovereign instituted; it follows, that whatsoever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his Subjects; nor ought he to be by any of them accused of injustice” (XIX). The Leviathan, established by common will and consent, appears impenetrable—incapable of committing any wrong, incontestable based on notions of injustice, or injury. With absolute rule, with no civic ability to question a Leviathan and their action, does governance take hold in the world Hobbes sets out. And yet Hobbes does suggest an instance or circumstance in which resistance is not only justified but also necessary.

Hobbes summarizes, “if the sovereign command a man (though justly condemned,) to kill, wound, or maim himself; or not to resist those that assault him; or to abstain from the use of food, air, medicine, or any other thing, without which he cannot live; yet hath that man the liberty to disobey” (XXI). The right to self-preservation is never fully conceded. Hobbes not only identifies that one can disobey an order to kill oneself but also, “if a man be interrogated by the sovereign, or his authority, concerning a crime done by himself, he is not bound (without assurance of pardon) to confess it; because no man can be obliged by covenant to accuse himself” (XXI). The sovereign cannot force the subject to abandon their impulse to defend themselves and their life, rather the subject is free to resist when the sovereign asks of the subject's consent to put their own life on the line. This is thence the limit to the sovereign’s impunity. My question is, if one is capable of viewing any ask of the a sovereign as fundamentally threatening their existence, is one at all obliged to obey the sovereign at any instant of Hobbes’ political process? If a black American sees themself subject to racially biased policing, criminal prosecution and judicial system that threatens their livelihoods and lives, do they at any point owe obedience to the state that defines those policies?