Thomas Hobbes: The Power Of Government

These rights are the rights to life, liberty, and estate. Everybody needs these rights, even people who are malevolent. By figuring out what life would be like in a state of nature, Locke was able to figure out what the government needs to fulfill in order to protect those rights which would not be protected with the state of nature. Even when were were still English colonies, we wanted the King to protect our rights. The government provides and strives to keep us safe and protect our rights whilst also benefiting the rest of the country. Locke states in his: an essay concerning the true original, extent and end of civil government, “Which is done by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it.” Locke believed government was formed when people unite together to help protect their rights to “estate, life, and

The natural state of mankind before forming a government. Hobbes and Locke both believed in a state of nature. They also both believed in a social contract. Hobbes wanted a government to protect people from each other. Locke wanted a government to protect our natural rights. Hobbes believed that power resided to the Monarch. Locke believed that power resided to the people. Hobbes believed that a government’s power cannot be limited. Locke believed that a government’s power can be limited. Hobbes believed that people do not have the the right to alter a government. Locke believed that people do have the right to alter a government.

Thomas Paine essentially wrote Common Sense for the common man. Being a pamphlet, its structure and simplicity made reading easy for those who were literate. Its minimalism enabled citizens in the colonies to unite under one common cause — independence against Britain. He was inspired by both John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government as well as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s On the Social Contract. Each of the philosophies discussed the purpose of government as well as which government was the most ideal. For Paine, government, is “a punisher,” in which society is ruled by in order to protect the properties of one’s natural rights (Paine 3). However, he defends a representative democracy as being the ideal. Likewise, John Locke also argues that governments protect the rights of man. Similarly, to

John Locke is a famous and influential 17th century English philosopher and political theorist who not only influenced and laid the ground work for the Enlightenment, but who also influenced the foundations of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Being one of the authors of the Social Contract Theory, he paved the way for democracy, republicanism and liberalism. One of his most important and notable work’s to this day is the “Two Treatises of Civil Government,” which is the document in which the American founding fathers accredited their work to as they used his political theories to draft both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Two famous philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have contributed to modern political science by expressing their views on human nature and the general laws that man had to follow. Both of their views differed in terms of how man should live his life. These views will be shown by comparing both philosophers’ opinions on the nature of man, and the various laws that constituted.

John Locke (29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) is a English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of the Enlightenment thinkers and known as the "Father of Classical Liberalism”. Locke got a scholarship to Oxford University where he spent 30 years at Oxford, studying, tutoring, and writing. He wrote influential political science and philosophy. Locke 's famous theory had to do with the Social Contract theory. The Social Contract covers the origin of government and how much authority a state should have over an individual. In the Two Treatises of Government (1689), he defended the claim that men are naturally free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. With both biblical and philosophical justifications, Locke argued in defense of constitutionalism. He believed God gave Adam natural rights like; life, liberty, and property in the book of Genesis and Adam passed it on to the rest of

When comparing the two different accounts of English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke we must take into consideration a number of things such as the age in which they lived and the time in which they produced their philosophical writings. We will however find out that these two philosophers actually have a couple of things in which agree on even though most of their opinions clash. On one side we have Thomas Hobbes who lived in the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651) who provides a negative framework for his philosophical opinions in his masterpiece Leviathan and who advocates for philosophical absolutism . On the other side we have John Locke, living during the glorious revolution (1688-1689) he presents a positive attitude in his book The Second Treatise of Government and advocates for philosophical and biblical constitutionalism.

Locke's most important and influential political writings are contained in his Two Treatises on Government. The first treatise is concerned almost exclusively with refuting the argument that political authority was derived from religious authority. The second treatise contains Locke’s own constructive view of the aims and justification for civil government. According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. To Locke, persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their life, health, liberty, or possessions. This is because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful. The State of Nature therefore, is not the same as the state of war. It can, however devolve into a state of war, in particular, a state of war over property disputes. Whereas the State of Nature is the state of liberty where persons recognize the Law of Nature and therefore do not harm one

John Locke views civil society—a group that is under the authority of an exclusive leader who is in charge of protecting their welfare through legislation—as a crucial repellant to absolute monarchy as well as vital to protecting an individual’s property, because its origin which is the paternal model where an individual gives up certain rights in return for protection from an executive. In his Second Treatise on Government, Locke pushes the idea that God did not intend for a man to be alone, but to have the option of joining a society amongst other men. Continuing with this notion, he explains the origins of the civil society through the paternal model which he considers as the beginning of society of people coming together under one man.

John Locke, who wrote the Second Treatise on Civil Government of 1690, founded the ethical idea that all men were entitled to their natural rights. Natural rights, from John Locke’s point of view, could be defined as fundamental principles possessed by each man that is set forth by nature itself. The idea of all men being equal in “what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of nature… (Document A)” was a radical thought that shows felt a great need to change the public’s thoughts of inequality to those of equality. It would be reasonable to say, that John Locke was a key influence when creating the government laws of the United States that still stand today; the Declaration of Independence

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which of that law, teaches all of mankind, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” this quote show that locke wanted all people to trust each other and to treat each other how they would want to be treated, with respect and trust that you have the best intentions for others not just yourself and to prove that you are not selfish. “Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus considering the plenty of natural provision there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders… there could be then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established.” Locke believed that if all men were to treat each other and all of their property equally there would be no arguments or fights over anything because everyone has equal things and equal opportunities in life. Locke believed that everyone was born with the three natural rights life, liberty, and property. Life stands for people wanting to fight to survive, Liberty is for the people and what they wanted, Property is for the people wanting to do anything that appeals to them in order to survive and allows them to own their own things like land, food, supplies etc. i agree with this

Locke believed that men had the right to revolt against oppressive government. “‘Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” (Document 13) He thought that humans were born with natural rights and that if a government violated those rights, then the people were justified in doing whatever necessary to overthrow that government.

Everyone has a perspective of their own about the government whether it be good or bad. Ancient Greek philosopher Plato and English philosopher John Locke both discuss the topic of government in their literatures. In the Republic by Plato, Plato introduces this concept of a just city. In this city, he believes that the older and wisest person(s) should rule as they are very knowledgeable. Everyone is born innately different according to Plato. Only those who are born with true philosophical understanding can rule. In the Second Treatise by John Locke, Locke addresses the state of nature, which is essentially equality and freedom. Even though people have liberty, they still need to obey natural laws. On the contrary of Plato’s just city, Locke believes that absolute authority is not a civil government. A civil society is where the majority rules. In the conclusion of this paper, I will have illustrated that Plato’s government view is more valid than of Locke’s.

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become known as three of the most prominent political theorists in the world today. Their philosophies and innovative thinking is known worldwide and it has influenced the creation of numerous new governments. All three thinkers agree on the idea of a social contract but their opinions differ on how the social contract is established and implemented within each society. These philosophers state, that in order for the social contract to be successful people need to give up certain freedoms in order to secure fundamental protections from the state, henceforth the state then has certain responsibilities to their citizens. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all believe that before men were governed we all lived in a state of nature. This state of nature was the conditions in which we lived before there were any political governments to rule over us and it described what societies would be like if we had no government at all. In this essay I will compare the opinions given by each philosopher regarding their understanding of the state and the law. I will also discuss how their theories have influenced our understanding of the law today.

Firstly, an absolute monarchy as proposed by Hobbes would require that people relinquish their own rights and to submit to one absolute power, which Locke feels is counterintuitive his understand of humans in the state of nature. A distinctive feature of Locke’s state of nature is perfect freedom for people to carry out their own wills without hindrance. Hence, Locke’s main critique of Hobbes’ absolutism is that people living under a Hobbesian