Bdtyk

A recent Economist article (see The drug war hits Central America) uses something called a Hobbesian trap like this:

Central America has fallen into a
Hobbesian trap: the better-off make
private arrangements—there are five
times as many private security guards
as policemen or soldiers in Guatemala,
and four times as many in Honduras—and
therefore block efforts to levy the
tax revenues necessary to strengthen
the state.

A simple Google search turns out to be unhelpful. What is this Hobbesian trap? What is the origin of it? What is a typical context where a writer can employ it?

Thomas Hobbes believed that human beings are essentially ruthless competitors, with only their personal interest at heart. Living in a state of anarchy, each man would crave another man's possessions and make his life a living hell. That is why an all-powerful state is necessary.

But why should it be a hell? Cannot men co-operate spontaneously? They cannot, says Hobbes, because they fundamentally distrust one another. Suppose I did not know what my neighbour was after, and suppose he were as strong as I was. He might intend to rob me or use me as his slave. I'd need a club to defend myself, though I was not planning to attack him myself. He, seeing my club, and not knowing what to expect of me either, would feel the need to forge a sword. For fear of the sword, I'd build great walls, and a cannon just in case. In no time, both of us would be occupied with protecting ourselves most of the time, says Hobbes, instead of producing something useful. We would have fallen into the Hobbesian Trap. And, where there are weapons and suspicion, war is inevitable. So freedom and distrust lead to waste and violence.

The fact that there are so many private guards in Guatemala shows that a large part of its resources go towards this unproductive business; if the state could handle it, a far lower number of policemen would be able to serve both me and my neighbour at the same time. (A complicating issue, and a reason why this probably isn't a good example of a Hobbesian Trap, is that the police are corrupt and fail to operate effectively; some parties probably even feel forced to protect themselves against the police.) Hobbes says everyone will fall into this trap where a strong state with a monopoly on violence is lacking.

A good example of a metaphorical Hobbesian Trap is an arms race, such as the one between America and the USSR, or Iran and Iraq during Saddam Hussein, or the countries of Europe prior to World War I. Note that a politician may abuse the Trap, by exploiting the distrust of his nation with regard to other nations in order to quell internal disagreement and strengthen his own position.

Consider also the Prisoner's Dilemma: the fact that one prisoner does not trust the other causes them both to make the wrong decision, resulting in a situation much worse for each than if they had worked together.

Theft causes shopkeepers, being forced to spend money on locks and security systems, to increase the prices of their wares. The thieves in turn then have to purchase at greater cost: they need the wares in any case, and the shopkeeper's security measures prevent them from stealing the wares. So both thieves and shopkeepers are worse off than if thievery didn't exist; but, if there were no security system, thievery would again pay off, etc. etc. This is not a pure example, since it is only the thief that is homini lupus—not the shopkeeper too, as it should be in a true Hobbesian Trap.

As I mentioned in my answer to a related question, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes loved the idea of an all-powerful state. And, you may or may not have previously heard of one of the most influential definitions of a state, given by the first political scientist, Weber, which describes it as as an entity with a "monopoly on violence." Therefore, Hobbes would have abhorred the idea a state without a monopoly on violence, with private security guards and such, because Hobbes regarded civilization as precious and easily lost -- a weak state, without a monopoly on violence, leads eventually to a failed state, then to power vacuum, then to anarchy, a trap that is quite hard for Man to extricate himself out of. And thus we get the Hobbesian trap.

A Hobbesian trap vs. Hobson's choice: Both are easily interchanged and used to mean the same thing, but they don't. There's no need to wax on incessantly. The confusion is in attributing a person who controls everything in offering a service; like what Thomas Hobson (1545-1631) did in hiring out horses to young Cambridge students. He gave them a Hobson's choice to ride his stallions. Students came to his stables in the early 17th century to ride horses (but Hobson's rule was, Students couldn't "pick" the horse of their choosing. Hobson directed students had to pick the horse closest to the barn when they arrived to ride & as they approached the stables.) A Hobson's choice is simply this. It still gives the receiver the choice of what they want (students came to ride a horse; they can do that) but with a condition (they can't pick the horse they want to ride). Thus,some ppl mis-attribute or call this a Hobson's "trap" or Hobbesian trap or "choice" ...but they are NOT the same thing. In a Hobson's choice, the only other option or choice is not to ride a horse at all. That is a "Hobson's choice." Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi" is a good example of a Hobson's choice.

A Hobbesian trap is so named after Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) a British Philosopher, and an earlier poster concisely laid out the parameters. In its' basic form, it's an escalating fear (example: you buy a home. It has no fence. People you don't know start leaving things on your property, so you pay to build a fence around your property to keep people out or off your lawn. Then, you realize your home has no home security system to protect your belongings, so you buy security cameras and motion sensor alarms to further deter ppl from coming onto your property. Then, you realize neighbors in your neighborhood have been burglarized, some by armed burglars, so now, you go out and buy a gun to protect you if at some point, an armed robber comes to rob you. With all this security, you can "deal" with an unknown threat from a stranger that might want to steal from you or harm you or your family. However, what if a robber still chooses to try to rob you, and instead of coming to your house with a gun, comes with a bazooka or tank to blow you out of your house? What are you going to do? You, in turn, hire an army. You feed and house them, and pay them a salary. You equip them with their own tanks and bigger bazookas to deal with the robber's one tank in an effort to be on the superior side, and keep your property from being robbed. Simplistically laid out, this is a never ending escalation, or a Hobbesian trap. A possible alternative to this trap would be if the house owner met his neighbors when he moved in. They would probably be more careful that they or their kids not leave things in your yard and no need to buy a fence or security system. That the house owner nderstood some of a robber's needs and tried to meet them. Both here, are a much cheaper solution; and, that the robber also helped alleviate the home owner's fears by both simply knowing the other as human beings. Costs on both sides go way down, and are an alternative to a Hobbesian trap. Many countries employ trade not to become ensnared in a Hobbesian trap with other nations.

Therefore, a Hobson's choice vs. a Hobbesian trap -- both mean two completely different things; but, both are often used mistakenly as interchangeable to mean the same thing...which they don't.

This is probably a confusion for the phrase "Hobson's choice" - which basically means "take it or leave it".

As Wikipedia says:

On occasion, speakers and writers use the phrase "Hobbesian choice" instead of "Hobson's choice". They confuse the philosopher Thomas Hobbes with the relatively obscure Thomas Hobson. Notwithstanding that confused usage, the phrase, "Hobbesian choice" is historically incorrect.