Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than John Locke's theory. Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature differently, Hobbes sees people as being run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. In our state of nature, Hobbes says we have no rights but Locke suggests that we have natural rights, God-given rights. Using reason, people decide to enter into a social contract with a ruler or a form of government, which would make a trade that, would help both of the parties. They both argue that the ruler can go too far or not fulfill their part of the contract, giving the people the right to revolt. Hobbes shows that humans are naturally evil that lays down the groundwork for his form of government.
             Hobbes and Locke's theories differ greatly beginning with their views of human nature. Hobbes suggests that people are naturally, solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish. He also says that without authority mankind is selfish and egotistical. John Locke, on the other hand, sees people as being peaceful in their nature state. These different points of show how they formed their theory of the state of nature. Without a government people are put into their state of nature, Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human state of nature. Hobbes states that the condition of people before government was short, solitary, poor, brutish, and disorderly. But John Locke shows a different point of view, he notes three rights that are God-given and inalienable, these three are life, liberty, and property. Knowing what people do and don't have the right to relates to how the government should rule their subjects.
             A social contract is an agreement between the people and the government in order to preserve order. Hobbes sees the government or ruler as a powerful sovereign. He named it "Leviathan," which is the name of a g...