# data[].attributes.body
Locke thought that he could lead to a state of nature with no rules no one in charge and no way for the people to protect their rights, but he also thought that the government should protect peoples rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Today, many countries and political ideologies are based around the writings of Locke and Hobbes. That depicts a world with the government and that anarchy is a bad thing.

# data[].attributes.body
almost all of the world's government is based and Hobbes and locke, some think that countries should be controlled by the government or one person but not the citizens ( like Hobbes) and others think that a country should be more open to hearing the citizens point of views and understanding them to make a better country, ( like locke thought) and only needing the government's help for health and protection mostly.

# data[].attributes.body
Hobbes introduced an idea that many politicians and philosophers built on. This includes the U.S's founding fathers.

# data[].attributes.body
At the time, these writings didn't impact much of society/governments. However, some of the things the writings stated where in effect in some societies. For example, John Locke states a government can only be legitimate if it is based around the social contract. In some ways this is trues because past societies have rebelled against leaders they found illegitimate. For example King Charles I of England.

# data[].attributes.body
many government systems are affected by both Locke and Hobbes ideas as they represent completely opposite ideologies and so it gives countries two different ideologies to base their own political system off of

# data[].attributes.body
Locke and Hobbes impact on the world back then was mainly based on how citizens would be affected when in a state of Nature and how that could impact a community

# data[].attributes.body
The most practical concept brought up by Locke and Hobbes is the fact they both agree that a place with no government would crumble. I think this is true because if people were to not have a leader/leaders, it would not ensure the security of everyone since in a state of anarchy nobody has any power whatsoever

# data[].attributes.body
Locke introduced a contract between the government and the civilians to give what the government needs and then the government will protect, If the government fails to deliver, the people have rights to revolt, this contract is still used today by many countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Some of the systems that were implemented by Locke and Hobbes are still in function to this day, but they are more inclusive than they were back then now, there are no slaves or any way of blocking a woman from voting in a democracy

# data[].attributes.body
i think the most practical concept of the social contract is john locke's version because in his you're able to switch out the main leader, with a consequence if said leader abuses their power. in his social contract, it went both ways - if the government fails, the people can revolt. in hobbes' version, the contract was more set in stone and was quite impractical when thought about more. in locke's contract, the people gave up some freedoms to have all of their rights protected, making it fair for both the people and the government.

# data[].attributes.body
Locke and Hobbes had different idelogies which is the opposite of each other, Hobbes think that social contract was no two-way street while the other thought about if the government and people agreed on things, People still have the right to take it back when the government isn't following on what they agreed on.

# data[].attributes.body
the most practical concept out of the two, based on reason, would be the idea of a social contract a.k.a a mutual agreement between the ruler and the people must be agreed on and must be followed/obeyed on both sides; a social contract that benefits both parties

# data[].attributes.body
Hobbes saw the human race as selfish and quick to fight. He thought that the people lived in a state of nature with no government and didn't bother to produce inventions and everyone would always be at war. Hobbes thought of a social contract for people to agree to hand over power in exchange for protection. Upon signing the contract, they've lost the right to overthrow, replace, or question the government.

# data[].attributes.body
The most practical concept in my opinion was the one of the social contract as the most important thing for a country is safety and protection, and if a country doesn't have such then it would crumble and they both agreed on that. Another thing would be the fact that without a government a country would crumble, without such authority then a place would be in a bad state economically but also in a sense of ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
John Locke's ideas of a social contract and what is expected of a government are the basis on how democracy works today.

# data[].attributes.body
i think the most practical concept is the social contract because he was one of the first off his generation to talk about the social contract between people and the government, for hobbes people agreed to let go of some rights for exchange for protection. they even lost the law or even right to overthrow the goverment.

# data[].attributes.body
i think the most impractical concept of the social contract is thomas hobbes' version, because it meant that the leader would usually be generational and therefore almost unchangeable. in hobbes' version, the people lost the right to overthrow or even question the government whilst giving up some rights and power for protection. but there were problems with having generational leaders for a few reasons. one was that not every leader would be the same, another would be that some leaders may not have children, etc. it's important to give people some say in their leader and be able to switch out the leader if something happens (for example they become corrupt or abuse their power). in locke's version, the leader is not set in stone, making it more practical in general.

# data[].attributes.body
i think that John Lockes version of the social contract is better because it gives more rights and freedom to the people unlike hobbes contract who was mainly about things being and continuing to be very strict and structured.

# data[].attributes.body
Hobbes noticed that the people give away their rights to the government for protection and the more rights they give to the government, they wouldn't be able to overthrow, replace or even question the government. Hobbes then made a social contract for agreement in which both sides agree to something in order to reach a shared goal

# data[].attributes.body
Locke thought of a set of natural rights that humans share to remain alive. They'll still have protection but their rights won't be stripped away from them. Some rules are similar to this in the current world.

# data[].attributes.body
in my opinion the least practical idea was hobbes as even though the decisions would be made faster (i.e a dictatorship) the rule that the people cannot interfere with the ruler and the ruler has the right to make selfish decisions with no consequence makes it the least practical as bad decisions made will reflect badly for the future and will cause for a unhappy people which is also very bad if they want to construct a funcioning society.

# data[].attributes.body
The least practical concept brought up by Locke and Hobbes is the Social Contract. In particular Thomas Hobbes' social contract. This is because Thomas Hobbes believed that once the people gave away their rights and power, they had no right to overthrow/question the government. Therefore, this sort of contradicts their writings as in some way, people aren't necessarily free/safe if they can't change or at least question their government.

# data[].attributes.body
For my perspective, the most practical concept brought by both Hobbes and Locke is that they both agree to a place without a government would lead to corruption, for my opinion, I think this is true because with a government, laws will be created and people will be more civilised while without a government, people have to fight to survive.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the most practical concept in my opnion was the social contract because it is a useful thing for both people and governement benefit base on each other, if the people helps the governement and the government did what they have promised, it would benefit the whole country by agreeing on one thing instead of revolution, crime and behaviors that will damaged the country. And without a governement, the world would be in a society where you need to fight to live.

# data[].attributes.body
At that time Lockes and hobbes both were having different ideas like Hobbes think that there should not be rule, no protection for people for there rights but lockes think that there should be government to protect the rights of people.

# data[].attributes.body
At the time, I think that people had less power and were being more controlled by the government ( kings, queens and monarchs) but not by choice, they had grown in a world where they were not in the power of choosing and their country, or world looked more like Hobbes's ideology. Until revolutions again the kings of countries were started in multiple places of the world

# data[].attributes.body
Many countries follow these rules because there are not many countries in the world with no government because the people in charge believe that there should be authority and law or else a place would not be able to function as anybody would do whatever they wanted at any time with no repercussions.

# data[].attributes.body
A practical concept that they wanted people to have their natural rights that any human being would have and somewhat having regulation within a state meaning that people would get protection and service from the government

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Locke's and Hobbes's most practical idea was what people needed. The concept that peoples need can be boiled down into 3 general ideas was unpursued at the time and very important, especially since at this point in time liberty specifically was a controversial topic.

# data[].attributes.body
Another example from hobbes is when he thought that there should be one ruler. who told everyone what they should or had to do and he believed in total authority over the country to one person, he believed in a monarchy led by one king or queen.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that it is all about a question of balance, without hobbes's idea there would be no control, but without locke's thoughts the countries would be boring with no freedom like a jail.

# data[].attributes.body
today, locke's impact is greater than hobbes'. there are less absolute monarchies (as hobbes was suggesting), so more of locke's ideologies are considered. he's had a larger impact on todays government.

# data[].attributes.body
Many political thinkers built on Hobbes' ideas and it is how Monarchy came, Monarchy has a monarch who rules the country which can connect to Hobbes's social contract idea even though there aren't many countries that have a monarchy system in their country.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that their idea of a state of nature is their least practical contract. Hobbes's and Locke's idea on a state of nature would never happen because people will always have a leader. Even if they don't officially have leaders people will look to the most powerful person in the community. This has happened since the start of human history.

# data[].attributes.body
For my opinion, the least practical concept is that Hobbes and his thinking was that before a government was made, people were in a state of nature where everyone had the right to do everything, and if one person wants to get something, he will have to fight to get it.

# data[].attributes.body
Even if it is a balance between both, I think that the least practical concept and especially today would be Hobbes's idea. He has the idea of letting no one speak besides from the government and for no one to be as free as they would like to be. Today holding a country together like that would probably be impossible to maintain because people nowaday are less scared of expressing themselves because the consequences are less severe than before in most countries.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that John Locke social contract are special and some of the countries are following the same ideas of social contract of john locke and this how some of the decomocray are following the same rules today.

# data[].attributes.body
The most practical concept was Thomas Hobbes's belief in the state of nature without the government. Without a government, people would feel free to do whatever they please even if it is cruel. The government makes people aware of the possible consequences that come with their actions.

# data[].attributes.body
The least practical concept is from Thomas Hobbes in his book called Leviathan. In Leviathan, he shared the belief that there should only be one ruler who has complete authority over the people. This idea could lead to disaster because if the ruler makes a bad decision or turns out to be evil, there is no one who can stop the ruler since no one else has the power to.

# data[].attributes.body
hobbes and locke had opposing ideas of a social contract and probably made a lot of people start to think about their governing systems(?). these ideas also began to slowly change the world. both agreed that the people should give up some things, locke thought it was important to give up some freedom for protected rights, and hobbes thought it was important to give up some rights and power for protection. where locke thought that the leader should be changeable, hobbes thought that it should be set in stone - with no right to overthrow or question the government.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, the least practical concept is hobbes's idea of state of nature. Even thought his explaining of state of nature is reasonable, but his idea of before there were governement, people lived in a state of nature. I think people are always organised by a leader if there is no government like how Hobbes's social contract is about.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the most impractical concept to have in a government is the concept of Thomas Hobbes. His view for a good society was for the citizens to give up all their rights to one leader who would have all the power to do whatever he wanted. He also meant that if the citizens were unhappy they had no such ability to vote for a new one the government would be unfair and a dictatorship like in North Korea, Russia and other countries

# data[].attributes.body
Locke and Hobbes writing impacted many political powers today. Hobbes and Locke both believed that governments were necessary which caused countries to establish a government until this day.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Locke has a bigger impact today. There are more democracies than there are dictatorships. There are not many countries that don't have a government. More of Locke's ideologies are more well thought out.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the most practical concept of both was social contract because country and people safety an rights of the people are important. But i think that john locke social contract was more beneficial for the people at that time.

# data[].attributes.body
Hobbes saw people had the freedom, to get what they wanted and people would be always at war.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the most least practical contract was by the Thomas hobbes because he think that if there will be no rules people can protect their rights but i think that john locke ideas was more better than hobbes because there should be government who protect the peoples right.

# data[].attributes.body
Nowadays, both of the ideas from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are applied. It just depends on the country and their beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
Both Locke and Hobbes had an impact at the time. But at that time there were still more monarchs. The government had less power than the kings or queens. The people were used to that because they never really had the power to choose something for their country. At that time the world was more like Hobbes wanted it.

# data[].attributes.body
Both know the outcome if there was no government except through different circumstances. Locke believed that governments should protect someone's natural rights and Hobbes believed that people should give away their power in order to be protected.

# data[].attributes.body
Hobbes said that upon signing the social contract, citizens lost the power to overthrow the government but would've happened if the leader wasn't what they were expecting. All leaders good or bad would've been unstoppable and likely to repeat what happens if there wasn't a government.

# data[].attributes.body
The most practical concept for a satisfied community would be the concept of John Locke. This is because it would give people their rights while still receiving protection and reasonable laws from the government. Having a dictatorship would only lead to the leader becoming too focused in their way of leading with no one to stop them even if the laws are insane and unreasonable causing people to suffer.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the most practical concept that Locke and Hobbes mention is that without a government the society would crumble.

# data[].attributes.body
I think both are important and that the most practical concept is something in the middle. Without Locke's idea, there wouldn't be any freedom and the people wouldn't have any rights. But without Hobbes's idea, there wouldn't be order. So both are important.