Sharing the similar concern Prof. Sabine says, “The absolute power of the sovereign—a theory with which Hobbes’s name is more generally associated—was really the necessary component of his individualism. In the same tone, Prof. Way per says “the Leviathan is not merely a forceful enunciation of the doctrine of sovereignty… it is also a powerful statement of individualism”. Hobbes accords a prominent position to the individual. He allows his individual the right to resist the sovereign if the latter attacks his life. In fact, the contract was finalized for the protection of right to self-preservation of the individuals.
Individuals are allowed to refuse to serve as soldier if it endangers their lives. Moreover, individuals could refuse to obey the sovereign, if he is incapable of protecting the lives of individuals. Perhaps the assigned absolute powers to his sovereign as it was warranted by logic, not to destroy the individual: Firstly, the prevalent state of affairs in England and belief in cruel human nature necessitated the creation of an absolute power. But, even it was based on belief of securing protection of individual lives. Secondly, He holds that “The state is not the end of the individual, but the individual is most certainly the end of the state”. Thirdly, the absolute power is derived from the consent of the individuals; not arbitrarily. Fourthly, Individuals retain the right to resist the sovereign in case the latter fails to give sufficient protection to individual’s life or in case the sovereign himself tries to kill him or places him in such conditions where his life is endangered. Fifthly, According to Prof.
Oakesholt, the Leviathan has not been created with the purpose of the destruction of the individual. Sixthly, even after contract, individuals retain the liberty of thought, belief, education, art, literature, etc. A brief list of individualistic stance of Hobbes reminds us of Way per’s observation “Hobbes so frequently portrayed as the great absolutist, is perhaps the greatest individualist in the history of political thought”.
Perhaps, his government can be said to be the government of the individual, for the individual and by the individual.