Locke Vs Hobbes State Of Nature Essay

Section I: Short answer essays
Question (1)
The great philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had divergent views on the type of people that would create a state of nature. Though, both philosophers belong to the same era, their arguments are different. Both of them conceive a different state of nature, and at the same time argue differently on the intentions to move out of the state of nature. “State of nature” is a term that describes the perceived situation of mankind before the establishment of a state, in which anarchy prevailed as a form of rule. Hobbes’ state of nature leads to the monarchic system of governance. He imagines a state of nature that encourages war of all against each other. Hobbes defends this by arguing that if the sovereign has little power, it can be made a subject to its own laws and this can cause havoc among people. Further, Hobbes believes that some men can outdo others. Therefore, this lack of sovereignty can lead to people destroying each other. Hobbes also believes that if people start to move out

The article, The Party Decides, shows how leaders effectively select their preferred candidates long before the Election Day. In American presidential nominations since 1970, parties have acted as a vehicle for nominees to get what they need from the government. Many contenders in elections have to seek the support of the party leaders and various interest groups before contesting for the seats they are interested in. The parties introduce front-runners even before the voters are aware of it, and thus play a vital role in influencing the final election outcomes. Thus, the influencing power of political parties can be felt as far too disproportionate. Therefore, Cohen et al. conclude that for one to win in the general elections, he or she must strategize well by choosing the right political