The theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have a very close structure. Their basis is the existence of a natural state, a public contract, the election of a sovereign and the creation of a civil status. But the different consideration of these four components is what makes a fundamental difference between the two theories. Hobbes’ theory is an authoritarian one, aimed at the one-man government. While Locke develops his ideas towards a more liberal policy, he is not accidentally seen as one of the founders of liberalism. The natural state is a major factor in both theories.
Nature, according to Thomas Hobbes, has created all people on Earth equal in physical and mental abilities. This, along with the freedom of man to do everything he thinks is needed to achieve his goals, is the foundation upon which Hobbes’ state of nature is built. Natural law is
…show more content…
This freedom is limited by the natural law, whose basic idea is the self-preservation and preservation of humanity. In the natural state there is equality between people and no one has more power then the others. The state of complete freedom is not a state of permissiveness. People do not have the right to destroy themselves or anyone else except in certain circumstances - when someone violates the natural law. Each individual person is the judge and executor of the sentences. A penalty is fair when it complies with the violation that has been committed. Unfortunately, people often aggravate or mitigate the punishment. It is this human defect that is a real prerequisite for the emergence of a state of war. In Lockes’ theory, unlike Hobbes, the state of war is not related only to the natural state. The state of war is the use of force without right. For Locke, this is a real danger for both the natural state and the civilian. The means available to the people in the natural state can hardly end the war- cause of civil