Locke believed that freedom existed when humans were alone. Rousseau thought that humans had freedom existed when humans created a new society. Hobbes argued that freedom came about when humans were ruled by monarchy. When it comes to government, the philosophers also had different views.

For Locke, property rights arise prior to the state as an element of natural law, whereas for Rousseau, a social contract is a necessary precondition for the creation and legitimacy of property rights. From this original ownership over the body, the Lockean understanding of property unfolds.

Locke and Rousseau, on the contrary, set forth the view that the state exists to preserve and protect the natural rights of its citizens. Hobbes theory of Social Contract supports absolute sovereign without giving any value to individuals, while Locke and Rousseau supports individual than the state or the government.

Locke views the state of nature more positively and presupposes it to be governed by natural law. Hobbes emphasises the free and equal condition of man in the state of nature, as he states that ‘nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of mind and body…the difference between man and man is not so considerable.

Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable …

Locke a Unitarian Formally, Locke belonged to the dominant Anglican Church, but within the Anglican Church, he was an advocate of the broad church, or latitudinarianism. The broad church held that all that was required to belong to the Church was that you believed what Jesus taught about God and human salvation.