A state built for people as they are
How must a commonwealth be constructed so that it holds together whatever the character of the men who run it — even selfish and passionate ones? Design, not virtue, is the safeguard.
Starting from human beings as passion and self-interest actually make them, Spinoza asks not how rulers ought to behave but how institutions can channel even selfishness toward common peace. He works monarchy and aristocracy through in concrete detail — councils, magistracies, checks meant to make tyranny structurally impossible — and grounds political right in power rather than moral duty, closer to Machiavelli, whom he cites with respect, than to the moralists he set aside. The manuscript breaks off on democracy, the most absolute form, where death stopped him.
- sovereignty
- aristocracy
- monarchy
- political stability
- human nature
- political philosophy
- citizenship
- power
- law
- institutional design
- accountability
- democracy
- natural right
- civil state
- security
- peace
- political authority
- reason
- rule of law
- political institutions
- political representation
- federalism
Enter a dialogue
- Someone has given up on politics, sure that whoever gains power will be corrupted by it — what does your design offer that hope cannot?
- Building a state for selfish men rather than trying to make them better sounds like surrender to the worst in us — is it?
- How does grounding political right in power rather than moral duty separate you from the moralists you set aside?
- If institutions, not the virtue of rulers, must hold a state together, what hope about human improvement are you asking us to drop?
- You cite Machiavelli with respect — how is your cold design not simply tyranny handed a cleverer blueprint?
- A person trusts a good leader more than any set of rules — where does your emphasis on checks say they go wrong?