The state of nature is life without any ruling powers of government or law. Although it is a legitimate concept, it is not something that is attainable; it may seem possible, but it is not. Humanity cannot exist without rules, guidelines, and disciplines for these are what prevent us from making poor choices or causing another person harm. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy, saw the state of nature from the perspective that all men are violent and are determined to be the most powerful and significant. John Locke, a well-known philosopher and political theorist, believed that the state of nature was an innate need for individuals to help others and seek peaceful solutions to conflict.
             Thomas Hobbes' theory of the state of nature implies that everyone must rely on themselves for survival. I agree with Hobbes' theory on state of nature because man has had an urge to always want more and he will do whatever he has to do in order to get what he wants. A prime example of such would be anyone with an intense desire over something he wishes. When countries come to a disagreement then go to war with each other over the wants of resources and raw materials, they will send their country militaries at each other with full force to achieve their wants. Hobbes endorses his opinion, "For war consists not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known" (para 4). Hobbes' point is that this quote is that not all war is also fought on the front line but also among politicians and congress. Hobbes' is surely right about war not only being fought on the battleground because, as he is aware, politicians are always in the heat of their own battles between making decisions amongst each other for the good of their own establishments.
             John Locke's view of the state of nature is nearly the opposite with the opinions of Thomas...