¶ … Nature by Hobbe and Locke Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, bases his argument of an all-powerful and unlimited government on a scientifically modeled reasoning. He asserts that it is only a sovereign and an all-powerful government that has the authority to attract full obedience from the subjects thus preventing them from resorting to violent acts of rebellion, chaos, and violence.

Hobbes uses the desire-aversion principle and the man's insatiable desire for power to argue out his concept of the state of nature. He asserts that in the absence of ultimate power, humanity co-exists in a state described as equality. Equality implies that all humankind have expectations that equally match their individualistic fulfilled desires. Further, they bear equality in their desire fight for the unlimited resources as well as kill. Using deductive reasoning, Hobbes then argues out that eventuality of this state of affair is "war of every man against every man." In a state of equality characterized by limited resources, then people are bound to enter into a state of competition for the resources. Since it is impossible to share the resources equally, and the mindset of vulnerability that each individual in this state feels, then people are compelled to the principle of being the first one to strike. This then triggers out a self-defensive mechanism as each person attempts to protect the power they possess. This situation is characterized by constant fears of violence, as the concept self-preservation takes pre-eminence. In such an environment, it is utterly impossible for civilization to develop (Hobbes, 2011).

In such a state where everybody is struggling to safeguard their power, Hobbes argues out that all self-preservation acts would be justifiable. As such, for fear of continued conflicts and...

Unfortunately, this agreement is based more on trust. In this sense, this move still presents problems, as the uncertainty of the actions that others may take cannot be based on trust only (Hobbes, 2011).
Hobbes further asserts that natural man would explore all alternatives to secure peace. Man must therefore enter into a contract of limited rights. Hobbes finds out that the viability of the contract is impossible as long as the state of nature still exists. It is at this point that humankind decides to give up his call for state of nature and transfer the power to a single institution. As such, the central power becomes sovereign and it is representative of all those who signed the contract. Hobbes concludes by saying that it is this sovereign power than ensures peace and civilization (Hobbes, 2011).

John Locke, in Second Treatise of Government, takes a different perspective regarding the state of nature and the idea of unlimited government. Both Locke and Hobbes agree on the fact that, in a state of nature, man would exist in a state of equality and utmost desire for self-preservation. However, unlike Hobbes, Locke discounts the concept that has an absolute right to everything at this state man and would have a constant war just for the sake of preserving his powers. In other words, Locke disagrees with the idea of first strike as an intervention of vulnerability for the sake of preserving ones powers. He further disagrees with the assertion that state of war cannot be avoided in a state of nature (Locke, 2006).

Both Hobbes and Locke concur on the fact that there exist…