In the so-called "state of nature", a time before governments existed that political scientists theorize about, individuals had
which of the rights listed below? Select one: A. Limited rights B. Unlimited rights C. Rights limited by their participation in a social contract D. No individual rights
Hobbes proposed his hypothetical political theory named 'State of Nature' that involves the interrogation of political authority and suggests a condition of liberty and equality for humans without any government or political affiliation. According to him, each individual is responsible for himself to control their natural rights.
As per the question, in such a state(state of nature) the individuals would have 'unlimited rights' due to no political control or obligation that could restrict or define their rights. Each individual is itself responsible for legitimacy or control of the society. Thus, <u>option B</u> is the correct answer.
According to Hobbes the answer is B, as the state of nature implies no formal governance individuals could do whatver they felt like. From our point of view this is a dangerous state because if one individual wants to physically abuse or steal food from the other individual there was no law to protect the weaker to be preyed upon.
<span> False. You are allowed to protest anything you'd like. It's only illegal to actually conspire against or incite others to inspire against the government.</span><span>
Since both can fix the problems, essentially economic philosophies advocating public rather than private ownership, especially of the means of production,
