In the beginning there was a dark side to the preservation of life. The man lived a life of kill or be killed, with no regard for himself. Life was lonely, poor, brutal and short. This barbaric and primitive state is what Thomas Hobbes believed was the state of nature. Practical reason dictates that when you are threatened you act, give up your property or wait for a sign of weakness to act. This means that everyone has the right to everything as long as it is possible. People cannot be trusted to follow the golden rule, or the ethic of reciprocity, seen in many religions as the statement that you should do to others as you would like to be treated. With the ever-looming danger of a cutthroat, the survival of the fittest In this scenario a need for security arose and the people reached a pact through reason, which would ensure the self-preservation of those who accepted it. By forming a social contract, the need arises for an external force that must be there to enforce these rules, otherwise any guilt would ultimately return those who agreed to the pact into a state of war. in order to ensure the preservation of those who are part of the covenant, which Hobbes called the Leviathan. Born outside the pact, this ruler will prevent people from destroying each other by imposing supreme rule. This meant that the people would surrender ALL their rights to the sovereign, effectively imposing an absolutist government. But how to ensure that the sovereign is impartial towards everyone? And, more importantly, what should people do if the Ruler begins to abuse his power to establish a new state where no one is safe from those who are there to protect them? At the pole or...... middle of paper ......Ke's theories would later be used to justify a reason for dramatic change. During the Glorious Revolution the Whigs rallied behind the theory set out by Locke in his Two Treatises of Government. The main reason was that it provided a clear theory as to why a state should be allowed to overthrow a monarchy if it abuses its power. Locke was also the basis for much of Thomas Jefferson's speech on why a revolution against Great Britain was necessary, to the point of appearing to plagiarize his work. However, a sort of double standard arises here. While Locke's natural law states that no man can be denied life, liberty, and property, slaves still existed after the Revolution. Since Locke equated freedom with property, and a revolution based on securing property against tyranny could hardly go back and take slaves, who were after all considered property.