Table of ContentsIntroductionDiscussionConclusionReferences IntroductionIn this essay I seek to demonstrate that Locke and Hobbes have the same conclusion that there must be a government to govern the people, but they just don't do it. I do not have the same premises and the same arguments as Locke, he is a classical liberal, that is to say that unlike Thomas Hobbes, he believes that humans are by nature interested and rational, as opposed to Thomas Hobbes that humans are self-interested and irrational. Hobbes believes that government must have absolute power and authority. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayDiscussionA state of nature refers to what life would be like without government laws, police, and other elements that constitute the state. Hobbes believes that life in the state of nature is lonely, nasty, poor, brutal and short because Hobbes argues that humans are by nature irrational and have a desire for power and self-preservation and that we will use all possible ways to satisfy these desires. . He also argues that the world does not contain enough resources to support and satisfy everyone. In a world without government, life would be totally horrible as everyone would be fighting for resources, power and self-preservation, the war of all against all. A movie called Lord of the Flies is a good example without strong leadership to govern the children they do whatever it takes to survive. On the other side, Locke has a different view on this point. Locke argues that in the nature of a state, because we are rational, we will be able to determine for ourselves how best to live our lives and what will be most beneficial to us, we will have enough resources to satisfy all the world and, in most cases, we will live a good and peaceful life. However, because we are self-interested, we will impose on the freedom of others what is called "the nature of law." The law of nature is a set of national rights that Locke says all humans should have. The law of nature states that no person may subordinate another person or harm his life, health, liberty or property. Locke argues that we should help each other when it does not cause harm to others. Without government, we would be forced to enforce the laws of nature ourselves, but this would lead to problems because we will not be able to get a fair punishment without bias. If we take care of punishment ourselves, what stops us from confusing punishment with revenge and harshly punishing those we hate. The same could be said or, conversely, what is there to prevent us from not punishing those we love and with whom we are friends. (Locke, 1689) Furthermore, punishment can be difficult to apply, for example if a theft steals my crops and I am going to punish him, nothing prevents the theft from ganging up and taking revenge on me, but the only way for me is to stop he must find an even more powerful source to punish his gang. I might as well let the theft get away with it rather than try to punish it. For this reason, Locke says that there must be a government to act as a judge dispensing justice without implementing prejudice unlike Hobbes, but Locke says that is as much power as the state should be allowed to having more power, like trying to introduce laws to businesses. and individuals who limit freedom and are unjust, but the question is whether total freedom is good.)