Hobbes And Locke Compare And Contrast

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both known for their works regarding political philosophy. They appear to be on opposite ends of a spectrum as far as how much power a government or sovereign can rightfully posses. Hobbes sits on the end of the spectrum that has strong government power — at an almost unbearable level. He takes the time to gloss over how power of government should be the most absolute force guiding the public. In contrast, Locke is much more in favor of giving the government only some power over its people. Locke also goes into great detail on how this can and should be accomplished, a contrast from Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both argue for two very different types of government — Hobbes an absolute sovereignty, and Locke a much more limited government, outlined with checks and balances. Both men referred to a social contract between that of the sovereign and the people, in which the people agree amongst themselves to relinquish some of their freedoms for the security and safety of having a government. The key differences in the

They should hold property and be fit to serve their fellow citizens in every way. Locke addresses what should be done in the event that there is no legislative branch present. He prioritizes the executive branch over all others for the reason that there may not always be new laws, but there will always be a need to execute the laws that are already put into place. In the event that there are no laws in place, it then becomes the duty of the executive branch to put out concrete laws to the people. He says, “Absolute arbitrary power [is] governing without settled standing laws” (Locke 137). Not only is Locke putting forth an outline of a limited government, but he is also explaining why things need to be carried out in a certain way — in this case why clear, mandated statutes are