Answer: A) Hobbes thought people were innately 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 violent 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. :-)
Answer:
I hope this helped. I am sorry if you get this wrong.
Explanation:
Militarism: A clique of militaristic officers (don't worry) and politicians had gained control over a lot of countries in the years because of WWII. Which is including Hitler, Stalin and even Mussolini. There aggressive tactics had forced neighboring countries to either one appease them or either two fight back.
Imperialism: European nation's sense of rivalry and even mistrust of one and another depended as they competed for colonies in Asia and even Africa militarism (which is the policy of glorifying military power and also keeping a army always prepared for war no matter what.
Nationalism: Nationalism had increased among European nations because every other nation had thought they were always the best and then disagreed with the policies all the other nations had for their nation.
Prior restraint is the answer to the question
