There are many reasons why we need government, such as creating necessary and/or desirable rules, accountability to the economy, public service, and the provision of social programs to people its citizens citizens and many others. However, this essay will focus on why we need government by discussing the term “State of Nature” and discussing the thinkers behind this term, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This essay will discuss their ideologies on the necessary and non-necessary needs of government. Furthermore, the characteristics of the state and whether govern the world in which we live. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay State of Nature is a useful term to explain why we need government since its definition is “the real or hypothetical condition of human beings before or without political association”. If we were to look at recent times with the Coronavirus pandemic , we have shown the need for a government. As the government has demonstrated its power in determining what is best for its country, for example by introducing a national lockdown. Other extraordinary global events such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the. Ebola epidemic of 2013/14. Events like these demonstrate how politics and government are essential and demonstrate that it is better to live in a political society than not makes rules and laws. However, progress, potential and human happiness all derive from a modern State of Nature would include Syria and Aboriginal people in Australia, from a Western perspective we have no Gods of War, etc. however in tribal places this could be a sense of Eastern Politics. Stating that each country has its own state of nature. Thomas Hobbes “believed that all phenomena in the universe, without exception, could be explained in terms of the movements and interactions of material bodies.” Instead, he saw human beings as “essentially machines,” with their “thoughts and emotions also operating according to physical laws and chains of cause and effect, action and reaction.” “No art; no letter; no company; and what is worst of all, the constant fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, evil, brutal and short.” – HobbesHobbes uses definitions as a basis for explaining a change in feelings and actions. In the state of nature, when the only feeling of good and evil derives from the “appetites and desires” of individuals, there are no general rules as to whether actions are good or bad. Hobbes believes that moral judgments about good and evil cannot survive until they are governed by the central authority of a society. This position leads directly to Hobbes's belief in an “autocratic” and “absolutist” form of government. Hobbes believed that monarchy was the best form of government and the only one capable of guaranteeing peace. In some of his early work, he states only that there must be a supreme sovereign power of some kind in society, without definitively stating which kind of sovereign power is best. In Leviathan, however, Hobbes directly argues that absolutist monarchy is the only just form of government. Overall, Hobbes seeks to define the rational foundations on which a civil society could be built that is not subject to destruction from within. Much of what Hobbes had to say about law was also said by other absolutists and by influential thinkers such as Suarez and Grotius. There were important points where he separated himself from the ideas and views of these writers. Some arguedthat natural law considered moral absolutes that must yield even against the command of the sovereign, while Hobbes argued that this was not the case, since “the principle” of natural law was “that we must not violate our faith, which is a commandment to obey the our civil sovereigns, whom we have established over ourselves, by mutual agreement with each other'. Here Hobbes encourages people to oppose their leaders, Hobbes was convinced that God placed all leaders (Kings) where they needed them to be, introducing Social Contract Theory (SCT). The mixture of SCT and obedience tried to get people to think about how leaders could be born without God, which led to the creation of governments. This theory had an understandable argument; however, it is neither realistic nor desirable. On the other hand, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have similar ideas and theories. Both were optimists and idealists, and both believed that the main purpose of the state was to take care of individuals and everything that belongs to individuals, so government should be based on the collective will of society and not on sovereign power. everywhere he is in chains” – RousseauLocke came across his revolutionary and anti-Charles II, 'Divine Right of Kings', as he discovered that fundamentally no one can be independent. Both Locke and Rousseau expect that good government governs our actions, that those who are governed are the true source of political power, and that governments are there to attribute arguments. Locke's findings were that "Natural Law" consists not of scientific laws governing physical processes, but of normative laws. To disseminate Locke's idea of ​​natural law it is appropriate to divide two aspects that it presents. The 'formal' aspect and the particular structure and content that Locke thought the law of nature had. In this respect, Locke's views differ from those of other natural law theorists of his time. 7 Rousseau's findings state that “Just as every group has a collective will as opposed to the individual private will of its members, so does government.” Rousseau believes it is almost inevitable that this group will end up usurping the legitimate sovereign power of the people and replacing the corporate will with the general will of the people. Essentially the theory here is that it's an agreement between the people and the government both getting what they want and need, it being basically a two-way street. Basically, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The characteristics of a state include; population: must have people; the territory must have clearly defined and recognized borders; government – ​​must be recognized internally and by other nation states in the international community; sovereignty: it must have the supreme power to act within its territory and to control its external affairs; a state-political unit with the power to make and enforce laws over a group of people living in a clearly defined territory. As much as these are the necessary characteristics of a state, does a state govern the world we live in? States are primarily concerned with the idea of ​​democracy and the whole point is to distribute the wealth created. However, there are differences between states and nations, as states can fail and nations are essentially a state of mind, a culture and a language. America is still one of the most overwhelming rulers, by the power of wealth, so perhaps it is the rich who have the most say in power. “Force is on the side of the governed” – Noam Chomsky The public is empowered through protests, petitions, etc. , but in reality there is a certain degree of apathy and no class consciousness, and how collective it is,.