Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both social contract theorist who had similar views of life, but they differed greatly in their fundamentals of the state of nature. They both agreed that for people to enjoy the benefits of society, they must make sacrifices of certain rights. Hobbes and Locke differ in the government used to enforce these rights. Locke's sovereignty was always held accountable to the people, while Hobbes' government had boundless control over the people. The foremost explanation for their difference is their fundamental priorities. Hobbes seeks peace, and Locke values the rights of property, life, and liberty.
             Thomas Hobbes Fundamental Law of Nature is to seek peace. You can conclude that the state of nature is actually the state of war. Men are constantly in a struggle for power, only after their own self-interest, which will only end in death. All humans are equal and one can conclude that any man can kill another and this leads to distrust between them. A man's property is all he can take and the only thing he can prevent from being taken from him. This often leads men to become enemies and they will often try and repress or destroy the other.
             In order to obtain peace man must follow natural laws in order to escape the state of war. However, in the state of nature, natural law does not exist; a power is needed to create a law to follow. A man must lay down his natural rights and with mutual trust others must do the same, but this is difficult to do because it is conflicts with our natural desire.
             John Locke has a different view of the state of nature. He feels that maintaining peace in a state of nature is difficult, but the state of war is not inevitable. He confers that Nature is also a state of perfect equality amongst all men and that humans are a creation of God. He believes that no man has more power or jurisdiction than any other man.
             Government is created when people make a social co...