However, after looking closely at Hobbes's ruler, we can find many problems with it, the first of which is its immunity from civil law. While he is still held responsible for actions such as punishing innocent citizens, his punishment comes from God and not man. It abides by the law of nature and not by enacted civil law. But what good is it for the subjects in the Hobbesian version of the Commonwealth if the sovereign is subject to the laws of nature and not to the laws created in the State? The logic Hobbes presents in defense of this is reasonable; being subject to civil law not only means that the law is above the power of the sovereign, but that there is a judge who can punish the sovereign. The judge in this case acts as a new sovereign, and since the judge is also subject to the law of the state, he too will need a judge, and so on until confusion arises and the state dissolves. (Hobbes, 215) However, for this very reason, the sovereign can do what he wants, modifying and creating laws as he pleases. (Hobbes, 176) We must ask this question: Why would a sovereign need immunity from the law for his self-interest if he is acting as a representative of his subjects? Why would Hobbes create this figure, the sovereign, to govern the subjects in their name for their benefit and safety, and at the same time allow him to change the laws at will, where such actions could possibly