Thomas Hobbes
The enforcement lemma and the laws of nature → the Charter; absolute sovereignty answered by the Charter-Apex — a rule, not a person.
Edition read. Leviathan, Parts I–II close-read; III–IV sampled for the church–state material.
What we took
The enforcement lemma is the doctrine's why-coerce-at-all: a pure value-sensor yields "covenants without the sword" — mere words — so broad sensing must couple to a narrow, deterrence-priced coercive arm. The laws of nature are a proto-Charter; the protection–obedience reciprocity is the participation condition, with an inalienable somatic floor lifted out of the sovereign's reach. Money-as-circulating-blood is the literal ancestor of the value-circulation reframe.
Where we diverge — and how we answer
Four great refusals, each answered by the Charter-Apex — an undivided terminus of authority that is a rule, not a person: against absolute/unaccountable sovereignty; against "no law can be unjust" (a Charter-violating law is void); against all-property-is-the-sovereign's (own-what-you-create precedes distribution); against one official truth (no official truth; annotate-not-censor).
The net position
Hobbes gives the wedge that makes distribution survivable — peace needs one undivided terminus of final authority, but that terminus can be a rule no one owns, not a person who must be trusted.
Every position is read at the source. See the whole register on Lineage & Critique, or the doctrine itself in The System.