Comparing Locke, Hobbes, And More

Three political philosophers, Locke, Hobbes, and More, were outspoken and advocated for change that faced both support and scrutiny that each had to argue their points and in some cases met both success and failure.
John Locke (1632-1704) was instrumental in driving change during the Glorious Revolution. It was Locke who introduced natural rights of life meaning that tyranny of a monarchy failed to recognize life liberty and property of all basic rights to men. In his Two Treatises of Government (1690), Locke set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens (McKay, Hill, Buckler, Crowston, Wiesner-Hanks & Perry, 2014). Locke argued that land owners should have the right to vote which made him very popular in colonial America however, his argument against Native Americans who did not own

Hobbs work revolved around Ethics and Human Nature believing that where political authority exists, we should always obey those in power. His beliefs were however met with resistance and that an absolute monarch was not widely shared by those in England and instead a Protectorate was established by Oliver Cromwell to establish a common wealth which was a military dictatorship. In Hobbes 1651 treatise Leviathan, he defines the commonwealth as an artificial human being and that all members of society should place themselves absolute rule (McKay et al., 2014). Hobbes believed humans were needy and vulnerable. I agree with his philosophy that humans naturally look for a leader and most are born to follow a leader and can easily be led astray by easily becoming victim of our own needs to define our identities by ideologies we may have been led to believe is ideal under false pretenses, which has never been more true today in the age of the