Well, actually it took some time because I ended up reading Locke for a few hours. Semi- colon galore! Spend one full stop, get fifty commas for free! Don't get me wrong, though. I enjoy deliberating on nonsense like this immensely.
I don't know. To be honest, I've never thought about just exactly what Hobbes would've added to the declaration of independence that Locke didn't provide perfectly well on his own. Even if I keep seeing the founding fathers reading Hobbes' explanation about children: 'none can be so selfish and with such disregard for their own or other's safety in their desire to aquire than them; who did they learn that from?'. Then the founding fathers glance comprehensively at the map of the federation and then spontaneously agree that perhaps there is something to Hobbes natural state after all.

But one thing is that even if Hobbes says that man in his natural state will drive himself to destruction, or something similar, he will choose this point as the outset for his analysis on how government should work for a reason. Bleak, but accurate, some would say about his observation. Accurate, and strictly observed from reality I believe Hobbes would've said. So where he differs from Locke is that he is not motivated in his reasoning by presuming some unknown or abstract, "all people wish to be good", but a real situation. Why is this? He seems to agree with Locke that initially, man is born free and independent, so why would he base his outset on catastrophe rather than, say, optimism?

Hobbes mechanical world- view is the answer to that. He must admit that his hopes for a stable government and so on is born out of what he can see. Feelings and desires, he would say, are no doubt a result of what is observable. In fact, as only the senses can pick up impulses, the influences from outside always shape our ideas. Not the other way around, for instance. So it is no coincidence that the start of Hobbes' analysis is the war- state rather than the free and independent natural state. This is what he can see. After numerous civil wars, the removal of the Stuarts and the ensuing military rule, no huge effort would be needed to envision the natural state as a state of war. Strangely, there is some controversy about this. Some books, and some people clearly state that Hobbes invent the "natural state", and therefore claim that Hobbes' natural state and consequently his theory is of the same nature as the one Locke has. Isolated, this is correct, but the difference is where the influence initially comes from and what that means. In this sense, Hobbes' natural state is not invented as much as observed. Locke had greater difficulties with being absolutely certain that his ideas and experiences were all real.

From this outset Hobbes then conducts what some rabid admirerers (oops) would call a sobering chain of reasoning, and that it is 'as real as any mathematical proof'. It is in fact impressive how persistent and analytical Hobbes is, but from the previous point it is possible to discern just exactly what basis Hobbes is working from. Since he is only responding to outer influence to his senses, it is therefore inevitable that his motion of reasoning is reflecting real phenomena. Ultimately, due to his mechanical world- view, his solutions are absolute, as is the mechanisms he describes: ethical as moral, political and physical issues - there is no room for dischord. The trade- off(if my old teacher sees this, I'm going to get lynched), is that the world in general does not have any room for disagreement either. It is determined.. Hobbes believed that there was such a thing as God's will with everything, and he thought so very thoroughly.

I won't dare to guess at what ideas the founding fathers extracted from Hobbes, though. But passages from Hobbes' analysis, sober and accurate as it is, might've been scavenged at least.

---

wonder if the board eats my post this time?