Thomas Hobbes vs. John Locke

Most of the people enjoy the shelter that the government holds upon our head.   Both Hobbes and Locke did something to the government to make it better and stronger.   Hobbes says that if we didn't have certain rules in our system, everyone would always be at war and havoc would occur.   Thus, he wishes to enforce a set of rules that everyone could bear by and follow.   Locke and Hobbes agree that both a state of war with the legislature justifies revolution, and the majority will never endanger itself.   Locke goes further and states that a legislative branch that doesn't follow the majority should be replace with one that does to be fair.  


Both of these views are important to look at.   If we had Hobbes view, we still be under British rule since it wants a stronger and absolute government.   This states if we were at war, the government will have to offer us something and we would stay with them.   Locke allows revolutions under the rule that the people are not being treated fairly, and under war we should be allowed to revolt.   Locke's view allows society to improve and change, while Hobbes wants society to stay the same and keep the rules.   The United States would never be here if it were not for Locke.   His view allowed the people to revolt to make things "better" and change.   I am for Locke and think change is much wiser than trying to keep things the same when havoc is happening.