Hobbes, inequality, and redistribution

What is Hobbes's attitude toward economic inequality, and should his sovereign pursue radical redistribution? In The Greatest of All Plagues, David Lay Williams argues that the Hobbesian sovereign must widely disperse wealth, since preserving peace under the laws of nature requires it, and concentrated wealth threatens that peace. This essay challenges that claim. First, drawing on Hobbes's distinction between just and good laws, I argue redistribution is not a duty of justice for the sovereign, only something a prudent sovereign would choose to do. Second, given the acquisitive character of Hobbesian felicity, and given that wealth is merely one form of social power among several, stability and peace may not always be best secured through radical redistribution. Finally, I reflect on the limits of using Hobbes to critique modern inequality, suggesting a paradox: the more extreme inequality becomes, the weaker the Hobbesian case for having a sovereign is in the first place.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Political Theory
Published
2026-08-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851261479212
Primary Topic
Seventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Hobbes, inequality, and redistribution

Chiara Cordelli
European Journal of Political Theory
Seventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
article

Hobbes, inequality, and redistribution

Chiara Cordelli
article en

Abstract

What is Hobbes's attitude toward economic inequality, and should his sovereign pursue radical redistribution? In The Greatest of All Plagues, David Lay Williams argues that the Hobbesian sovereign must widely disperse wealth, since preserving peace under the laws of nature requires it, and concentrated wealth threatens that peace. This essay challenges that claim. First, drawing on Hobbes's distinction between just and good laws, I argue redistribution is not a duty of justice for the sovereign, only something a prudent sovereign would choose to do. Second, given the acquisitive character of Hobbesian felicity, and given that wealth is merely one form of social power among several, stability and peace may not always be best secured through radical redistribution. Finally, I reflect on the limits of using Hobbes to critique modern inequality, suggesting a paradox: the more extreme inequality becomes, the weaker the Hobbesian case for having a sovereign is in the first place.

European Journal of Political Theory
University of Chicago (US)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Seventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Hobbes, inequality, and redistribution — Chiara Cordelli · European Journal of Political Theory (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS