The Line of Demarcation Between Individual Freedom and State Power is a Contentious One. Explain how the philosophers youve studied have dealt with it.

On Individual Freedom and State Power : Views from Hobbes , Locke and Rousseau

Since time immemorial , the concept of individual freedom is a contestable in philosophy . The recognition of man 's natural rights and inherent capacities as thinking and rational being poses relevant questions about the limits and weaknesses of such nature . This then becomes not only a philosophical question but a political one as well especially with the emergence of state as a primary institution to which we turn as we encounter the consequences of excesses in individual freedom . Yet the

state concept is not devoid of issues and contradictions . Its organization , composition , form , rights and obligations and power are related areas which scholars equally unravel I suppose individual freedom and state power are two elements whose relationship must be properly established . The goal of this relationship setting is to be able to produce the most benefit for the society . As individuals increase in number and create communities , the nature of the self ' has transformed while its configuration is impacted upon by their interactions . The purpose of the state and its existence will pose significant implications which must be carefully studied too . Hence both sides are worthy of analysis - and a better one would necessitate a reflection on the works of three political thinkers namely Hobbes Leviathan Locke 's Two Treatises of Government and Rousseau 's The Social Contract

Hobbes and Rousseau have contending arguments on the nature of human beings the former views man as beast by nature while the latter suggests an innate nature of goodness among us . Their assertions have also led to distinct ideas about the sovereignty and power of the government and the relationship between them . With the basic equality of men proposed by Hobbes , the inevitable condition of war of every man against every man transpires as every man 's desires can not be obtained by all but only some or a few . Competition , diffidence and glory- these are the three psychological causes of fear and strife . The fear of death although could naturally be pacified by learning prudence and moderation may still lead one to break the covenant of peace in the absence of a superior authority for enforcement . Rousseau distinguishes between natural man and civilized man . To him , our minds have been corrupted in proportion as the arts and sciences have improved (cited in Ebenstein 444 . Unlike Hobbes who considers the nature of man to be evil as the cause of evil , Rousseau in such instance perceives the environment and the changes in it as the potential source of man 's wickedness . The formation of the society has caused the rise of the problem of inequality from its nascent and natural cause which includes differences of age , health , bodily strength , etc . Yet it is compassion that could resolve them not reason and thinking . Civilization becomes only a hopeless race to discover remedies to the evils it produces . Why these discussions on the nature of men are important becomes evident as they...