Is this an accurate conversation between John Locke and Thomas Hobbes?
“Locke’s state of nature contains no noble savages or utopian freedom [as did that of Rousseau]. It is a state of poverty as well as being, like Hobbes’s, a condition that is “nasty, brutish, and short.” The state of nature is poor because, as individuals, we are little able to protect our persons and property from the predations or dishonesty of others. Locke’s state of nature, however, does contain right and wrong, and so natural rights. Thus, “to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men.” http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm The difference is in their methods of solving the predations and dishonesty of others. Hobbes believed a King should have all the power because men could not solve their own problems. Locke said that if men were given the real freedom of “consent” that they could solve their problems. Hobbes hated the species of man; Locke found man to be uplifting.
