Hobbes Vs Locke

Two of the most influential political philosopher and social contract theorists of all time, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both used ‘The State of Nature’ as a medium in order to understand the basic human nature and natural human rights in their writings. Both, then used their own understanding of the human nature in order to determine and justify the ideal form of government, its role and its powers. However, Locke and Hobbes reach markedly different conclusions. Hobbes argues that every man should concede all of his natural rights to the government and allow it to assume absolute power, while Locke argues that man is entitled to keep his natural rights and a government body is required only in order to protect those certain natural rights.
Locke explains further by saying that even though the state is of liberty, it is never of license. Man is at liberty dispose, but not destroy himself and his possessions, for even the state of nature is governed by natural laws that preach not to harm anyone else in life, health, liberty and possessions. Locke believes that through reason, man has the innate knowledge of right from wrong and can thus maintain the state of absolute liberty by punishing law breakers, “everyone has a right to punish law breakers as severely as is needed to hinder the violation of the law”, making every human a law enforcer. At the same time, this poses a shortcoming in Locke’s state of nature due to the unbiased opinion that someone will have of their own crimes as they would be the law enforcer and law breaker at the same time. “Now, a magistrate, who by being magistrate has the common right of punishing put into his hands, can by his own authority cancel the punishment of a criminal offence in a case where the public good doesn’t demand that the law be