If you had to choose, do you agree with John Locke or Thomas Hobbe's philosophy?
This is 4chan so it will be mostly Lockeans
Hobbes made more solid foundational points about societal roles, like a European Confucius, and the results are much less of a mixed bag than Locke's focus on property rights for "me me me me me me" which is selfish but understandable
Both views are wrong but Hobbes was the better of the two.
The State didn't come out of necessity or out of a social contract; it came by force and through armies bought by capital accumulation.
>treating the state as a necessary evil to be balanced against the individual
>not understanding that laws and customs are essential to the life of the virtuous man
enlightenment pls go
Hobbes is the superior thinker even tho I disapprove of the degree of scientific rationalism present in his thought. His premises are fairly unobjectionable and he introduces a very subtle system. I like to read him along Oakeshottian lines even tho I don't necessarily think it's the best way to understand what Hobbes himself believed.
I'm sympathetic to Locke's conclusions but, like Nozick, once scrutinised he is left with a gaping hole where a serious theory of original appropriation should be. I think the theory of property is where the ultimately arbitrary nature of all political positions is most clearly exposed on both sides - it comes down to bare assertion when you dig deeply enough.