On one hand, there is Hobbes whose theory is b

Rousseau, like Locke, does not believe in an absolute or unlimited government. His theory also contrasts with that of Hobbes, due to the fact that he believes mankind is, for the large part, good. Therefore, society is the major force that drives humans to do irrational and inhumane acts. He also believes that the government does not always provide for the general welfare of the people, and often has personal agendas. He claims that all of the power should reside in the hands of the people because they are the ones being affected by the government’s decisions. Rousseau states that, " …war individuals are enemies by chance, not as men, not even as citizens." So why would you send them to war to achieve an agenda that would not affect them directly or even indirectly? Hobbes believed that man has the right to everything, and stays at constant war with each other. Hobbes believes that men were at constant war with each other, and that men quarrel for three reasons; competition, distrust, and glory. According to him, humans have enemies because they have a thirst for power and that this power is only felt through the death of others. Hobbes views materialistic desire as the motivation for all actions while reason provides the best possible way to fulfill these desires

Bossuet, alternatively, believes in absolute power and a strong government. He believes that the king had the final say in everything. His theory also include

Some topics in this essay:
Rousseau Locke, Rousseau Bousset, Civil Government, America’s Bousset, Overall Hobbes, John Locke’s, hobbes believes, people own, people people, locke believes, human nature, absolute government, theory based, government believes, hobbes’ theory, constant war,