Comparison Of Thomas Hobbes Second Treatise Of Government

The Leviathan of Hobbes proposes a system of supremacy that a supreme or invincible ruler controls. Meanwhile, Locke's Second Treatise of Government presents a government that is dependable or responsible to its people with restrictions on the supremacy or power of the sovereign. Furthermore, according to Hobbes, the "state of nature" is both extremely a cruel setting and oddly formed or structured. Hobbes recognizes that we have natural laws that exist, but he mostly talks about the "state of nature" as a place of total or absolute independence. However, what like Spiderman's uncle said, with great power comes great responsibility. I would like to rephrase it and say, "With absolute independence comes aggression and destruction. “To this …show more content…
According to Hobbes, the laws alone in the "state of nature" are not sufficient. Hobbes said that it is a necessity for people to have somebody or a higher influencer to enforce or implement rules and throughout the imposition of these laws comes harmony within the city. Everyone enters the commonwealth for serenity and their own protection. With this, Locke agrees with Hobbes on the development of a commonwealth. As stated by Locke, man authorizes to enter the commonwealth for their serene, secure, and still stay or living along with another citizen. Both Hobbes and Locke have the same opinion on the formation of civil societies, however, their difference is from how they each think or feel that a civil society should be ruled or controlled. We all know that Hobbes is a supporter of the sovereign ruler with supreme power, while on the other hand, Locke sets the control in the hands of the people, and he does not want the power to be focused or concentrated to one ruler. In accordance with Hobbes, people moving from the state of nature into a treaty, in which they surrender all of their rights when they enter a contract with the all-powerful sovereign, creates a commonwealth. In contrast, the rights of the sovereign are absolute and cannot be controlled by the people. The sovereign or ruler cannot give up their supremacy, nor can the people be released from the agreement that they have with the sovereign. As Hobbes …show more content…
Locke points out the freedom of the ruled over the rights of the sovereign. Locke favors a legislature government over a monarch. He puts up in mind an administration with the fear of concentrated power. For Locke, the most horrible form of the regime is tyranny, consequently, as much as possible; he puts the power to the hands of the people, where Hobbes prefers the sovereign. The government of Locke obtains its rule directly from the citizens, whereas Hobbes’s monarch rules absolutely. I would say that Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is more independent and more contemporary than Hobbes's The