Who really killed Tupac Shakur? Was it really Suge Knight or was it Orlando Anderson? The Southside Crips killed Tupac Shakur ? A eyewitness account seen Orlando Anderson part of the southside crips/ biggies gang going towards tupac and suge knight right before tupac was shot source 4 A man seen a dude wearing a southside crips shirt going to tupac's car.
“That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Jefferson 120). This man believed the same as hobbes, that there needed to be something to control and regulate what was needed for a population to live
Hobbes’s opinions about politics and government were far different from fellow English philosopher John Locke’s in his document Second Treatise of Government published in 1689. Locke existed during a much later period in Europe, when the Wars of Religion was over and England had established the Glorious Revolution Agreement between Dutch nobility, William and Mary, and Parliament. Due to the different time periods in which Hobbes and Locke lived, their experiences had a major effect on their opinions about government. Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government had different opinions regarding a man’s state of nature and social contract.
Monopolies in the 1900’s had immense powers in the market, and were able to have complete control because they had such power. A monopoly is the “exclusive control of commodity, market or means of production” where the “power is concentrated in the hands of a select few” (Beattie). While monopolies do get jobs done and inquire a large amount of money, their success it at the expense of the people and the power they have obtained is abused. They started off liked by small businesses because it helped with shipping costs, but eventually monopolies became too powerful. They are more hurtful to the public than helpful, and the benefits they gain from being a monopoly hurts the public, making them a collective dilemma.
There is no government, no authority whatsoever. Every being is born equal and share the right to do anything for their survival. His political theory was based off his idea that all humans are naturally evil and selfish. Hobbes said that this equality leads to war. “...a war of every man against every man.”
John Locke also went against Hobbes’ ideas by saying that government can be overthrown. These ideas all show different viewpoints, that government should have all the power, and that it should be split up to keep them from having all the
Hobbes and locke were two philosophers who two different ideas on the world and human behavior as a whole. Hobbes mainly believed that without any form of government people will always be trying to fight for power. On the other hand, Locke believed everyone is born peaceful but can be corrupted by society. Hobbes and Locke both had very different views on different human nature, the purpose of government, and both had a big influence on many different countries.
Coming of Independence was seen by 1775, when the talk of liberty had pervaded the colonies. As the crisis intensified, the Americans increased their base not only on the historical rights of the English people but more on the topic or abstract language of natural rights and universal freedom. The thoughts of these rights and freedom emerged from two important people that both sparked the need for a revolution and for new change; they were John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. John Locke expressed the fundamental view that the government is there to serve people. Locke wrote that all individuals are equal, that they are born with certain inalienable natural rights; that rights are God-given and can never be taken or even given away.
John Locke believed in a democracy and expressed that humans have the ability to govern themselves. However, Hobbes believed that humans are selfish and need a single leader(king) that should govern all affairs. Post French Revolution people lived under Hobbes theory, but wanted to become a democracy.
Hobbes believed that natural state of humans was violent and therefore needed order and control to ensure a just and equal society (Robinson 2016, 4). However Hobbes believed that a sovereign could maintain power without deceit and manipulation. Hobbes believed in the social contract which is when people could have a moral understanding about right and wrong to avoid the chaotic violent human nature. Hobbes believed in the idea of utilitarianism which would “maximize the most good and minimize the pain” (Robinson 201, 4). This would ensure that the sovereign was doing things for the right reasons and not to better himself but to better society as a
John Locke believed in life, liberty, and property and Thomas Jefferson believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can already see they had both had the same view point , they both believed in democracy, the people had the right to overthrow a government if they feel like if there are abusing their rights since they are supposed to protect the people’s rights, and they both believed all men were created equal. The differences they had were that John Locke believed people had the right to happiness, believed the separation of powers through legislative and executive branches, and believed in the privacy for people’s personal affairs. While Thomas Jefferson believed people had the right for happiness, he also referred the government
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. It is important that we know that the state of nature describes a pre- political society prior to the social contract.
While Hobbes also states that the human nature does not allow for the people to live in peace and to pursue common goals since “here are very many that think themselves wiser and abler to govern the public better than the rest” (Hobbes 3). respectively, there always exists the notion of competition, and if there is no possibility to reach consensus over the issue, there is the need for establishing an authority. This is the reflection of the social contract idea in the work by Hobbes as far as the author is concerned that only through common action and goals the society is able to function without problems and conflicts. Nevertheless, even though, in contrast to Machiavelli, Hobbes suggests the way of getting power that is based on agreement rather than on power and intellectual games, their ideas regarding the need for a strong ruler who would be able to establish the order in the society is rather similar, even though in one case this task is taken by a person himself and in the other case delivered by the
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society.
Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.
