Hobbes was Wrong! A True and Natural anthropology for Mankind and Government.

Human beings are not solitary entities born and raised in isolation, devoid of social and cultural inheritance. Rather, our nature is fundamentally social and communal, embedded deeply within the networks of family, community, and tradition that shape and mold us from the earliest moments of existence. Contrary to modern individualistic or atomized conceptions of anthropology, which often treat the individual as a self-originating agent free from predetermined social bonds, a true understanding of human nature recognizes that no person emerges from a vacuum. Families—both nuclear and extended—are the foundational units of civilization, the primary crucibles in which human identity, values, and manners are forged. It is through this intimate, formative milieu that humans acquire their earliest lessons in fidelity, respect, and honor.

Individuals do not select their families; they are born into them without choice, raised within the faith or culture of their ancestors, and taught social codes they inherit rather than invent. For much of their early lives, human beings are utterly dependent on their familial environments, which provide not only physical sustenance but also the moral and social framework essential to their development. This dependence creates bonds of loyalty and respect that persist even after individuals leave the parental home or establish new households of their own. Indeed, the social rules, customs, and manners instilled in youth remain ingrained—sometimes only subconsciously—throughout a person’s lifetime. Such inherited fidelity is not merely a sentimental attachment but an indispensable social glue. It extends beyond the immediate family to the wider community, itself a collection of families, which in turn form nations, and ultimately empires. Within this hierarchy of families, noble lineages stand apart as more distinguished, embodying virtues and responsibilities that reflect their elevated station. At the apex of this social structure lies the royal family, whose authority and dignity symbolize the unity and continuity of the entire realm. The loyalty owed to one’s royal or noble family mirrors that owed to one’s own household, cementing a broad social order rooted in interdependent allegiances.

This anthropological reality of human social embeddedness provides the foundation for understanding political authority and governance. Where does legitimate rule derive its right to govern? The question has historically been answered in two fundamentally opposing ways: through the Divine Right of kings or the Social Contract. The Social Contract posits that political authority originates from the people themselves, with rulers deriving their legitimacy from popular consent. This consent is often tacit, sometimes passive, but ultimately constitutes a bottom-up relationship whereby the governed grant authority to their leaders. By contrast, the doctrine of Divine Right holds that true political authority is a sacred trust delegated by God to earthly rulers. This establishes a vertical, top-down relationship between the divine, mediated through the Church, and the monarch, who governs as God’s representative on earth. Importantly, Divine Right is not an absolutist claim that kings may act without restraint; rather, it defines the origin and nature of their authority, which is conferred through solemn religious ceremonies such as coronations. Kings remain bound by the moral and social codes prescribed by religious teachings, just as their subjects are.

The Divine Right of kings is better understood as a covenant—a solemn contract between God, king, and people. Unlike the Social Contract, which assumes that the people are ultimately sovereign, capable of creating and dissolving governments at will, Divine Right asserts that only God grants and can revoke legitimate authority. When kings fail in their duties or break their oaths, they lose divine legitimacy, and earthly agents such as the Church may call for their correction or removal. This theological-political framework protects monarchy as an independent form of government while distinguishing the individual monarch from the enduring institution of the crown. Each reign involves a renewal of this covenant through coronation ceremonies, reaffirming the sacred bond and ensuring continuity beyond any single ruler. In contrast to the fluid and often unstable popular sovereignty of Social Contract theory, Divine Right resists arbitrary revolutions and safeguards hereditary succession, royal prerogatives, and the vital role of the Church in societal life.

Governance itself is most stable and just when it reflects the natural complexity and hierarchy of society. This principle undergirds the concept of mixed government, which integrates three classical forms of rule: monarchy, aristocracy, and polity. Each of these forms corresponds to rule by one, by a few, or by many, respectively, but united under the principle of ruling for the common good. Historically, mixed government was acted out by the king taking council, where the king and the estates gathered and deliberate together. Such a system fosters cooperation, compromise, and dialogue among different classes and social interests, rather than fractiousness or obstruction. The success of mixed government hinges on solidarity and good faith among participants; breakdowns in dialogue signal failure rather than liberty’s triumph. Feudal subsidiarity, the principle that decisions should be made by the smallest or most local and competent authority, lies at the heart of this governance model. It implies that matters should be resolved by those closest to the issue, whether local lords, guilds, or civic bodies, reserving only the most general or critical concerns for higher authority. Federalism, as a modern institutionalization of subsidiarity, solidifies, through written constitutionally binding structures, the earlier institution of feudalism, which was primarily founded on personal oaths and the strength of the honor codes at the time. In this light, absolutism was and is an anomaly, it emerged not from feudalism’s strength but from its failure—the collapse of a mixed regime necessitated the concentration of power in one person or institution, be that the king or the parliament.

The principles of true anthropology, divine authority, and mixed government offer a profound lens through which to reconsider the nature of the American republic and its future potential. Today, the American republic is understood largely as a regime where sovereignty resides exclusively in the people, exercised through elections and representative institutions. This conception, however, is modern and limited, bearing little resemblance to earlier, more organic notions of governance, even of republics. Older political orders recognized multiple, distinct claims to authority: kings and nobles inherited their status, cities elected aldermen and mayors, guildsmen rose through merit, and even peasants had their own rural leaders. Power in the “state” was not a single abstract will, but a composite of various legitimate sources united in a commonwealth. Therefore, the American system can be reimagined as a true republic—a res publica—that incorporates diverse estates and social groups, working together for the common good rather than submitting to the arbitrary will of a numerical majority.

This redefinition could integrate traditional elements of monarchy and nobility, recognizing that republican government need not be incompatible with hereditary or aristocratic institutions. Local governance might include village and town assemblies, cities led by aldermen and guild representatives, all potentially under the oversight of a noble or royal overlord. State governments could evolve into realms and protectorates, potentially with their own royal or noble leadership owing allegiance to a King-Emperor, or governed by that same Emperor, as king in his own right, over the said realms. At the federal level, existing bodies like the House of Representatives and Senate could be transformed to reflect a more mixed constitution: the House of Representatives could be renamed to one of Deputies; to further disentangle the association between elections and legitimate authority, the Senate could include many more seats to accommodate the hereditary nobility, appointees, clergy, and imperial princes. The office of the President would be replaced by that of the King-Emperor, who embodies the unity and continuity of the entire political order.

Central to this reimagined imperium could be the Great Chamber of the Estates—a single grand assembly of both high and low alike, including imperial princes, nobility, clergy, city deputies, yeoman leaders, and others—over which the King-Emperor would preside in person. This assembly would convene at least every five years, or during times of crisis, serving as the forum where the sovereign hears grievances, addresses subjects directly, and reviews royal edicts. The presence of the monarch in person would legitimate the proceedings and reinforce the covenantal nature of governance. Such a structure restores the historic symbiosis between monarchy, aristocracy, and “the people”, reflecting the anthropological truth that society is an organic whole composed of families and communities united under a just and divinely sanctioned order.

In summation, the enduring truths of human nature, political authority, and constitutional design affirm the necessity of ordered hierarchy, legitimate divine sanction, and cooperative governance. The modern abstractions of individual sovereignty and atomized citizenship obscure the rich fabric of social relations that define human existence. True legitimacy flows not from mere majority will but from a sacred covenant involving God, ruler, and people alike. Mixed government exemplifies the practical expression of this covenant, balancing the roles of monarch, aristocracy, and commoners in a system that encourages dialogue, subsidiarity, and shared responsibility. Finally, by embracing these principles, the American republic can transcend its current limitations, evolving into a more robust and integrated imperium—one that honors tradition, recognizes diversity of authority, and embodies the common good for all its citizens.