In just a moment, a tyrant could kill or get ride of their close adviser, even if they were useful, such as Hitler's Night of the Long Knives. It also reminds me of Trump constantly turning over personnel in his White House as his temper and mood shifted constantly, threatening those who even still aligned with him.

Boetie is skeptical of the human sprit. Morally repugnant people cannot have true connections and relationships. If both people are backstabbers, neither should be surprised when they inevitably get stabbed in the back by the other.

"I Me Mine", not just a great Beatles song, but very representative of the selfish mindset of man. We are so focused on our own interest and state of wellbeing that we are willing to subject our fellow countrymen in pursuit of material well-being. As I said before, the corruptibility of man is a moral problem. "If men were angels..."

Corruption spreads, fairly easily.

The corruptibility of men also plays a role in this. If men had higher and more ideal morals, then there would be no men that would prefer tyranny to liberty, no matter the lure of material goods.

This is how tyrants are really maintained. Via co-option and coercion and corruption, the tyrant creates a large network that is systematically dependent on him. If many people profit from this system, why upset the status quo by uprising or simply rejecting the ruler?

This honestly makes me think about Trump and January 6th. For one, I think about the fact that Trump and his fellow associates all plotted to overturn an election result. All the while, they had security guards given to them by the government! It is a delicious case of irony that the Secret Service would be protecting the man who "masterminded" the first U.S. insurrection of the 21st Century. Furthermore, there is something overall symbolic about Trump's presidency with regards to this statement. Under Trump, the rich and powerful got an all-access pass to the President and the government, gaining lucrative tax breaks and such. Furthermore, many of Trump's associates and aides have fraudulent histories or are under investigation. These people are dangerous to the U.S. But, who doesn't Trump represent or allow represented in his white house? The common people who just want to be able to afford groceries. Instead, he welcomes those with plots to overthrow the government. Therefore, Trump can be seen as the ruler allowing "the well armed who can carry out some plot"

As Hobbes noted, only with a threat would someone "freely" enter subjection/enslavement

power corrupts

Slavery and subjection are unnatural

Thus the true nature of the world and its inhabitants should be one that matches the true notion of community and symbiotic relationships.

This is true, for parents have a natural domination over their offspring. They are, in a sense, the only true/natural rulers.

While there is a certain truth to this, so far his account neglects to discuss the very real hold on power that rulers exhibit and the truly coercive nature of force and power and the effect that has on deterring subjects from revolting, or in this sense, refusing to support.

No victory or reward without pain and suffering. In the end, the sliver of hope for freedom and liberty should win over the fear of death or enslavement.

Tying this back to Hobbes, if refusing to serve a ruler will result in death or some other form of harm, as Boetie also suggests, than it is reasonable not to rise up or refuse to serve since doing so can result in harm and thus the security of the present state wins over.

This is profound and ties into what I wrote earlier. There is no need for a large and violent uprising or insurrection when the simple act of refusing to acknowledge a ruler's authority, in theory, strips them of their legitimacy. After all, without subjects serving them, a ruler does not rule.

I would posit that those with the aspirations of freedom and liberty would fight harder than those who are fighting to enslave others. There is something about being backed into a corner that fires up the human spirit.

This seems to combat the notion or the use of insurrection or revolutions, arguing that these large uprisings are unnecessary or even more complicated than what is necessary: refusal to recognize authority. Indeed, the monarch could not rule if you do not give them the power to rule, though this is easier said than done, as history demonstrates. Or perhaps, insurrections are acceptable as they are a manifestation of refusing to serve or acknowledging a ruler's authority.

This ties into one of the laws of nature as described by Hobbes that we mustn't concede any means for which we preserve our life. In other words, Hobbes states that you must do whatever you can to stay alive. So, if someone holds you at gunpoint and says, "Die or become a slave", Hobbes' law dictates that you chose the option that allows you to live and sees this choice of slavery as a legitimate and binding contract as it is the only means to stay alive. Thus, yes, humans tend to subject themselves to force if it means preserving themselves.

This is the absolute and arbitrary power that Thomas Hobbes carefully describes in "Leviathan". While Hobbes advocates for a strong sovereign, here we see the concern with giving "one master" or "one king" too much indiscriminate power over the lives of ordinary people.

Right from the start, this ties to the notion of political legitimacy that has become historically relevant to the West. Written well before Rousseau, we can still see similarities, namely between the need for governments to have the support of the people as described by Boetie here, and the social contract that Rousseau described where people voluntarily bind themselves together to form a polity. In both cases, political or government authority seems to be derived from the people.