Plato vs Locke

In analyzing the works of Plato and John Locke I feel that Plato presents a more accurate idealism in how a society should be maintained. Plato puts ultimate power in those with the highest knowledge. I feel that this concept is necessary in order to have a successful regime, thus I support in my argument.
Plato's theory hand picks guardians to become Philosopher Kings. These kings are those with "Gold" Souls, and in fact do not wish to become such a hierarchal figure. Plato chooses Guardians who do not wish to earn the title of Philosopher Kings because without desire to rule, the only reasoning left is for the good of others, and not a selfish feat. It's an obligation to put one's high knowledge to good use. Locke puts the people in charge of choosing their government, and feel that government's main task is to protect property. Additionally, Locke feels that in the state of nature one is able to live, act and dispose of possessions however one feels necessary to themselves. With this in mind, is it even conceivable that one would choose a government without their complete personal interests in mind? Trying to construct a perfect society, when everyone has so many personal attachments to obtain to, then ideas would not be set in the focus of a whole society, but on the individual's well being. When following Plato's theory on the Philosopher Kings ruling for the good of others, would not the good of others include their safety in society? And thus protection against possessions? In an ideal regime whereby it is classified as ‘utopia' things such as protection are not questioned, as there would be no wrongdoing for protection to need to come into play for. Guardians have no possessions at all. They are separated from their children at birth to prevent family ties from overriding the loyalty to the state. This is to confirm that decisions made are in the best interest of others, without attachments to their own lives. Plato states that the soul has