This was very much in agreement with Rousseau views. They agree that everyone in the society should have a fair share of resources since they all work to earn this basic need.
There are, however, some contrasting views on their theory where Rousseau criticizes most of the Hobbes views. These views are as they put them in their theories. Hobbes in his theory of human believes that human nature is always in conflict (Angeli 1998). The conflict is brought about by the stiff competition of the unlimited resources which are scarce in nature. He brings out the nature of competition as a state of war between different people, fighting to be left out with the object which is in demand. This fight causes the society to live in chaos. This is because the societies’ needs are many but they can only be settled out by a few resources available. The limited resource makes people to engage in such activities as corruption and disobedient of the rule of law. Therefore, they live as though they are not under the umbrella of the government. Rousseau’s criticizes Hobbes’ theory of human nature by proclaiming that the human nature is good. He argues that human behaviors are largely transformed by the society they do live in. He also argues that Hobbes was not able to define nature in a manner that was understandable.
Hobbes believed that the state of nature is so much influenced by selfishness in the society. People have no love for one another, and they do influence policies which suits their needs. Human nature according to him influences the political power system and governance (Cespi 2008). Because of the materialistic nature that people have, they do compete for power because human power is influenced by the material wealth that one has. He looks at these desires of material wealth and power as very negative way of human interaction. He argues that the economic and political