Hobbes Vs Rousseau

The discussion of legitimacy of political power have been around since parties and politics became involved. When a state is actin legitimate has become the focus of many philosophers where they examine the state of nature and how communities have reacted to their governing of the state philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke and Hobbes are few of the many who have successfully contributed to the discussion. Rousseau however states that a state is only acting Legitimate when they govern their citizens with consent and equality. Both Rousseau and John Lock both have similar views on the way the state should govern their citizens. Although they do have different thinking in recourses where Rousseau goes against Locke and Hobbes decision,
Rousseau in “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on Inequality” questions the legitimacy of power answers the questions by stating “Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority of men” (Rousseau 628) stating that that to have legitimate power is thorough consent and goes into examples on how consent is given and uses the examples of slaves. When Rousseau states the collectiveness of how living within a state is important he creates an image of safety and protection the state will bring the people. In page 593 he states” “Let us join to guard the weak from oppression, to restrain the ambitious, and secure to every man the possession of what belongs to him: let us institute rules of justice and peace, to which all without exception may be obliged to conform; rules that may in some measure make amends for the caprices of fortune,” where he wants
In Locke “” he talks about the labor being put into earth as a development and that those who try and hinder the state of nature are subjected to punishment because they are taking away plans and recourses from the state of nature. Meaning that if a man wants something from another man or is challenged for something they already believe to own there will be an altercation or wariness surrounding the relationship between the men. However, Rousseau believes that remaining in the state of nature is not beneficially and will” presently experienced the inconveniences which had obliged individuals to forsake it; for this state became still more fatal to these great bodies than it had been to the individuals of whom they were composed.” (Rousseau 595) eventually Rousseau believes that in having a pure state of nature will always lead to corruption due to the master’s greed for power where it vanishes equity and virtue seeing as the poor slaves believe that their master has no restraints leading to