So Locke or Hobbes?

From jim.com/hobbes.htm




Locke is correct. Hobbes was smoking crack if he thinks man is not a social animal.



I'd say Locke is less wrong here. There will usually be strong semblance of society and peace, but always the chance of a violent group going around and either killing everyone and taking their stuff or enslaving them, which is of course a huge problem.



Tough call, and I think both are right to an extent. Courts of all types being so busy all the time points to Hobbes being largely correct, although you could also argue that it's only because there is a state run court system that people forego objectivity they may otherwise have in the state of nature and just try to win the case. Also you have to factor in that disputes in the heat of the moment are clouded by the irrationality of high emotions, but later objectivity may be regained. This still seems to me to functionally make Hobbes' position correct so I'll call it say 70/30 to him.



Both are correct and incorrect to an extent, and it wouldn't be hard to come up with examples for either side. I'm going to give the edge to Locke, because a wise arbiter should usually be able to determine if something is overall good or bad. Having said that Hobbes is also correct that a strongman demagogue can also speak good and bad into existence to a flock of sheep, but this is not always or even usually the case.



Depends entirely on culture and programming. Currently the world functions like Hobbes indicates, but that is not to say it has to be that way. Peace is certainly not the norm and almost never has been but it easily could be in a different type of civilization. This one is a wash 50/50.

As for the conclusions (not listed here but on the webpage), I agree with Locke across the board as Hobbes was basically just promoting totalitarianism and a divine, infallible monarchy.

Yes.