John Locke was also regarded as one of the most remarkable political thinkers in seventeenth-century Europe. But defiantly, his philosophical arguments differed significantly from Hobbes. Locke perceived mankind as naturally good and kind. He argued that people could cope with and survive well with others, but a government was needed (Christman 2002). The government would merely possess enough power granted by the people. The perception of Locke on the government was founded only on serving the greater good or the public interest. He detested having an unlimited, supreme authoritative government (Christman 2002).
Locke’s considerable importance in political thought is better known. As the first systematic theorist of the philosophy of liberalism, Locke exercised enormous influence in both England and America. In his Two Treatises of Government (1690), Locke set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Locke opposed Thomas Hobbes’s view that the original state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short,” and that individuals through a social contract surrendered—for the sake of self-preservation—their rights [...] (Academic American Encyclopaedia 1994, 388).
Locke dealt with the assertion of Hobbes that a state of war was the state of nature, though he did not relate this assertion to Hobbes. He disproved it by citing existing and actual historical cases of individuals in a state of nature. For this intent he considered any individuals who are not under the authority of a common arbitrator to resolve conflicts or disputes, individuals who may justifiably take steps themselves to punish criminals, just as in a state of nature (Academic American Encyclopaedia 1994).
Thomas Hobbes was evidently a monarchist. He