The anarchical condition that Hobbes described in the state of nature is also taken to be true for the international system, where states are the main actors. Realist views of the International system still dominate today. The main difference from Hobbes’s theory is that, at the international level, it is not possible to rely on the Leviathan of the state to subdue destructive pursuits of power and self-interest. States cannot trust each other, and are therefore doomed to arms races and wars.
For Locke, a legitimate government upholds the principle of separation of the legislature and executive powers. The legislative power is superior to the executive — the former has supreme power to establish general rules in the affairs of government, while the latter is only responsible for enforcing the law in specific cases.
One reason for the centrality of laws in Locke’s writings is that laws protect liberty. The purpose of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. In political society, Locke believes that “where there is no law there is no freedom.” Laws, therefore, both constrain and enable freedom.
He decided “everything depends entirely on politics.” People were not inherently evil, but could become so under evil governments. The virtues he saw in Geneva, and the vices in Venice could be traced not to human character, but to human institutions.