Answer: Hobbes believed people were naturally selfish and violent.
<u>Further explanation</u>:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan </em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and evil toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
They held desired resources which included land and labor. Hope this helps.
Answer:
Thomas Paine did.
Explanation:
Common Sense/Author
Thomas Paine
Please give me brainliest
The treaty of Versailles was a bad idea. It benefited countries like Britain, France and America as they where the top powers to come out of the war. It blamed all of the damages caused to their countries squarely on the Germans simply because Germany was the best target. The German where forced to surrender all their foreign lands. They where forbidden from entering the Rhineland. They where forbidden from uniting with Austria. They where forced to pay reparations to the winning side after the war, leaving the German people and the Wiemar republic in poverty! If it wasn't for all these terms suppressing Germany, Hitler would never pushed the boundaries of the treaty, the Nazi's where unlikely to ever rise to such power as they where elected as a last hope when Germany lost faith in democracy and therefore Britain would not have had to declare war on Germany for taking over Poland and Slovakia, entering the Rhine and uniting with Austria. It is often said that WW1 was just a build up to world war two, as if it wasn't for the treaty of versailles none of this was ever going to or even had a possibility f happening.
