But this similarity is a misnomer. Even though both men do have opposite views on many of their political arguments, the fact that they are able to structure their separate ideologies on the state of man in nature is the bond that connects them. Rousseau made his sovereignty popular by introducing the concept that the general will is the determiner of everything. But such a picture is quite irrelevant in our time. Thus parliamentary sovereignty may be called popular sovereignty. The residents of the state of nature were quite eager to find out a way out and finally they decided to set-up a commonwealth which could defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another. In both places there was direct democracy.
The logical consistency of Hobbes has been the source of dislike and the logical inconsistency has led us to like Locke. Wayper has said that it is a transformer state, because it seeks to transform the self-interest into public good. He did not consider the obligation simply as a relation between the governors and governed. In regard to sovereignty Hobbes is to some extant nearer to Bodin and Locke is nearer to Rousseau. This can be viewed as the utilitarian character of obligation. Montesquieu also opposed the idea of an absolute monarchy and believed that the main purpose of government was to maintain law and order and protect the political liberty and property of the individual. All the three philosophers held the view that the state or civil society or body politic was the product of contract made by men who lived in the state of nature.
This resulted in partial anarchy and loss of life, liberty and property. Natural Rights must be secured. Similarities include: rights, state of nature, atheism, powers of a sovereign, and the idea that governments are beneficial. But Ebenstein observes that Hobbes cannot be called a totalitarian or collectivist thinker because he made special provisions for individuals. The individuals would have every right to resist any sort of foreign aggression.
But Locke thought citizens should have limits imposed upon them as to what they may or may not do. In support of his contention Rousseau quotes Machiavelli. So both absolutism and democracy co-exist in his political philosophy. On most other things, they are pretty similar. The ideas of these men lead to the formation of two of the strongest nations in the history of the world: Great Britain followed by the United States. The way things are in a structural sense is fundamentally the same as it was in Marx day in that the capitalist structure remains. By Shawn Gill Machiavelli and Hobbes both rejected the classical and medieval intellectual traditions that preceded them.
Although they do have some similarities, Hobbes and Locke have different views on most of their political arguments, and I will expand on their differences on the state of nature, government, and social contract. Hobbes was so much preoccupied with the maintenance of peace and security that he had no time to think of any other thing. Both individuals had varying stands on different issues. Hence we can say that Hobbes made room for individuals. They must be actively involved. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke represent the beginning of political science in the seventeenth century,their ideas on what government should or shouldn't do would be refined by Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers thus becoming the basis of the constitutional democracy of the United States.
The two men's opinion of man vary widely. This has been created and developed by the human faculties. Hobbes and Locke thought of establishing a state through the contract and this state was simply a political organization. The state envisaged by Rousseau is of organic character. In Sections 220-223 he has also explained the resistance. I, myself, am an eternal optimist however experience taught me otherwise! Outside the state, man cannot achieve freedom. This is the opinion of C.
That means parliament will exercise supreme power. In his view, it represents a state of permanent war, a permanent threat to the continued existence of the individual. Thomas Hobbes 1858-1679 , an English philospher, believed that all humans are egotistical and selfish. According to Locke the state is a type of fiduciary trust which means that it is always accountable to the people. Hobbes, Bodin and Rousseau made remarkable contribution to the concept of sovereignty. He said that in reality those living under popular governments, in present and past times, would agree that the virtues associated with republics by the ancients, and pursued by hot blooded men in present times, are illusory Ibid. These are if the authority forcibly deprived people of their legal property, if it is involved in corrupt practices, forfeits the power of the people and tries to satisfy the high ambition.
Hobbes makes certain comments which are contradictory or convey different meaning at the same time. The citizen shall have the right to express their opinion about any law but once it is accepted observing the norms of the general interest the dissenters must give their consent. Any violation of the social contract would one in a state of war with his fellow countrymen. Locke believed that humans could be well-behaved and civilized and therefore a dictatorial or overly strong state is not needed. Faced with the disorder as a result of their dominance, the rich offer to themselves and to the poor, the institutions that govern them by wise laws.
. The central theme of Hobbesian thought system was individual and his interests. They felt that there were unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property that a government was responsible for protecting. Hobbes believed people act on their own self-interest, and they would go to any extreme to help themselves. The state of nature is not necessarily good or bad.