This by you, Vishagan, an observation, or a directive? As an observation, I agree. As a directive, I think societal powers develop independently of the wish of the people... they are quasi-evolutionary forces that can't be influenced, other than with totalitarian measures. Thus: capitalism as a division of power and a division of labour, is such a development in industrial production and social arrangement, that its functioning and its nature can only be altered by drastic means, such as with introducing communism (or any other totalitarian system) on a society which then artificially alters natural ways of economy and social order.

Hobbes does not call for the 'sovereign' to direct all the affairs of the citizens, to wit:

15. The liberty of subjects consists not in being exempt from the laws of the city, or that they who have the supreme power cannot make what laws they have a mind to. But because all the motions and actions of subjects are never circumscribed by laws, nor can be, by reason of their variety; it is necessary that there be infinite cases which are neither commanded nor prohibited, but every man may either do them or not do them as he lists himself. In these, each man is said to enjoy his liberty, and in this sense, liberty is to be understood in this place, namely, for that part of natural right which is granted and left to subjects by the civil laws. As water enclosed on all hands with banks stands still and corrupts; having no bounds, it spreads too largely, and the more passages it finds the more freely it takes its current; so subjects, if they might do nothing without the commands of the law, would grow dull and unwieldy, if all, they would be dispersed; and the more is left undetermined by the laws, the more liberty they enjoy. Both extremes are faulty; for laws were not invented to take away, but to direct men's actions; even as nature ordained the banks, not to stay, but to guide the course of the stream. The measure of this liberty is to be taken from the subjects' and the city's good. — Hobbes, The Citizen, Chapter 13, section 15

As a general note on reading Hobbes, it should be observed that ending the natural state of war between men by means of agreeing to the power of the commonwealth does not signal the end of other "natural" activities and rights of Man.

Taking a page out of monotheism, people don't mind the concentration of power in one individual, so long as said individual is not just good but all-good. Seeing that monotheism so popular it's safe to say people actually prefer philosopher kings, democracy being, under the circumstances, the least worst option. It's important to keep in mind that God is, as of yet, fiction! So much for benevolent dictators, fiction!

As for division of labor, I don't think it's either a good idea or a bad idea.

Taking a page out of monotheism, people don't mind the concentration of power in one individual, so long as said individual is not just good but all-good. — Agent Smith

That is precisely not true in regard to seeing the realm of a single universal realm as above any organized by men.

Taking a page out of monotheism, people don't mind the concentration of power in one individual, so long as said individual is not just good but all-good.
— Agent Smith

That is precisely not true in regard to seeing the realm of a single universal realm as above any organized by men. — Paine

Why not?

I did say:

It's important to keep in mind that God is, as of yet, fiction! — Agent Smith

Hobbes does not base the need for the 'concentration of power' upon the evident virtue of a ruler but upon the fear of violence and a desire for peace between individuals. He says those arrangements between men are not overruled by the covenant between an individual and his maker. In the later portions of The Citizen, Hobbes describes the idea of God as a fiction to be equivalent to saying the natural world has no causes.

There are, of course, many different expressions of monotheism that represent a view contrary to Hobbes.' That makes the unqualified nature of your reference to the idea a misrepresentation of the topic.

Hobbes does not base the need for the 'concentration of power' upon the evident virtue of a ruler but upon the fear of violence and a desire for peace between individuals. — Paine

a Hobbesian take on the issue. Good to know.

Hobbes describes the idea of God as a fiction to be equivalent to saying the natural world has no causes. — Paine

Hobbes, a theist! Should've guessed that one right.

It adds up but not in the way I thought. I guess it's a fair trade: no violence and mayhem for the small, even though real, chance of tyrannical oppression.

That makes the unqualified nature of your reference to the idea a misrepresentation of the topic. — Paine

Sorry about that. I'll be more careful next time.

Good day.