ical system that would work. Each was influenced by careful observation of the events of his day. Each believed that a form of government was necessary. If each theory had to stand on its own, I believe Machiavelli’s might be the only successful form of government (not the best for the people, but the only one that survives). For this to be the case, a ruler would truly have to follow Machiavelli’s ideal character of a prince and sway the people. However, Locke, in my opinion, had the overall best view because he was concerned with the welfare of man. He promotes mans ability to reason. However, I think that Locke fails to see that even though man is capable of reason, he often uses his reason in not so commendable ways. For this, Hobbes should be much admired, but he takes this to the extreme. I feel that Rousseau is basically living in a dream world. The likelihood of men all agreeing is non-existent. However, he propose a smaller state that could better benefit a community. Regardless as to whose theory is more accurate, all have notable ideas. This is apparent in that hundreds of years later we still study and critique them. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau created a legacy that lives on two hundred (plus) years later in the conversations and debates their contrasting opinions create. BibliographyAuthor unknown [June 11, 2000]. “Niccolo Machiavelli”. Available: *http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Marble/5888/viewsfr.htm* [Oct. 6, 2000]Bernstein, Alvin [no date]. “Locke vs. Rousseau: The Modern vs. the Medieval”. Available: *http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5148/Bernstein_on_locke.htm* [Oct. 6, 2000]Cassidy [no date]. “Hobbes vs. Locke vs. Rousseau”. Available: *http://provost.ecsd.edu/Roosevelt/mmw/hvslvsr.htm* [Oct. 6, 2000]Nickles, Tom [no date]. “Niccolo Machiavelli” Available: *http://unr.edu.homepage/nickels/wthonors/machiavelli.htm* [Oct.6, 2000]United S...
