No, but this is what people who connect Hobbes and liberalism have in mind (from de Jasay’s masterpiece, The State):

Recalling the regimes of Walpole, Metternich, Melbourne or Louis Philippe (only more so), with a blend of indifference, benign neglect and a liking for amenities and comforts, the capitalist state must have sufficient hauteur not to want to be bothered by petty disputes among its subjects. The more quietly they get on with their business, the better, and it may occasionally, and a little reluctantly, use a heavy hand to make them do so. Its distance from the mundane concerns of its subjects does not, on the other hand, imply the sort of heroic hauteur which a Nietzsche or a Treitschke wished to find in the state, which reaches out for some high purpose, risking in avoidable war the life and property of the subject; nor the hauteur of utilitarian ethics, which sees the subject and his property as legitimate means to a greater common good. In a seeming paradox, the capitalist state is aristocratic because remote, yet with enough bourgeois overtones to recall the governments of the July Monarchy of 1830-48 in France. At any event, it is a state which is very unlikely to be a republic.

All this criticism of republicanism, by the way, should not be taken to mean that I don’t appreciate Jefferson, or even Machiavelli. Neither republicanism nor democracy is exactly the right term for the thing at which I’m taking aim — it’s more basically the idea that man creates his own law and that politics should should express human will. To some extent, politics as what Oakeshott called “enterprise association” or “teleocracy” is unavoidable. But that’s something to be discouraged as much as possible, and some political arrangements and philosophies encourage teleocracy more than others. The great merit of the U.S. Constitution, for all that it centralized and expanded power, is that it’s nonetheless nomocratic and can be used to thwart teleocratic drives.