IndexIntroductionDiscussionConclusionReferences IntroductionIn this essay I try to argue that Locke and Hobbes came to the same conclusion that there must be a government to govern the people, but they simply do not do Having the same premises and arguments as Locke is a classical liberal meaning that, unlike Thomas Hobbes, believes that humans by nature are selfish and rational, unlike Thomas Hobbes that humans are selfish 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Discussion A state of nature refers to what life would be like without government laws, police, and other things that make up the state. Hobbes believes that life in the state of nature is lonely, mean, poor, brutish, and short because Hobbes argues that humans by nature are irrational and have a desire for power and self-preservation and that we will use any means possible to satisfy these desires. He also argues that the world does not contain enough resources to support and satisfy everyone, so in a world without government life would be totally horrible as everyone will fight 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 governing the kids, they do whatever it takes to survive. On the other hand Locke has a different point of view on this Locke argues that in a state of nature since we are rational, we will be able to figure out for ourselves how best to live our lives and what will benefit us the most, there will be sufficient resources to go around and please everyone and in most cases we will live a good and peaceful life. However, because we are selfish, we will impose what is called “the nature of law” on the freedom of others. The law of nature is a set of national rights that Locke argues that all human beings should have. The law of nature states that no person can subordinate another or harm his life, health, liberty or property. Locke argues that we should help each other when doing so causes no harm to others. Without government we would have to enforce the law of nature ourselves, however this will lead to problems because we will not be able to get just punishment without being biased. If we are in the business of punishment ourselves, then what is to stop us from confusing punishment with revenge and severely punishing those we hate? We could say the same or vice versa what is there that stops us from punishing those we like and are friends with. (Locke, 1689) Furthermore, the punishment may be difficult to carry out, for example if a theft steals my harvest and I go to punish him, there is nothing to stop the theft from ganging up and taking revenge on me, but the only way I could do it is to stop him he has to find an even more powerful source to go and punish his gang. I might as well have let the theft get away with rather than go through all the fuss of trying to punish him. For this reason Locke says that there needs to be a government that acts as a judge giving justice without applying prejudice unlike Hobbes, however Locke says that this is the same power that should be given to the state to have more power like trying to introduce laws for businesses and individuals that limit freedom and are unjust, but the issue is having total freedom and freedom is a good thing. Hobbes says government must have absolute power and authority. His only obligation is to protect the state from external danger and)