According to Hobbes, the need to create a form of government arises from satisfying the need for security. For the government to provide this security, it is necessary that it be able to use its authority as it sees fit. Locke and Mill, on the other hand, believe that government should be able to provide security for its citizens, but that to do so, government need not be large, rather it must be limited. The question therefore arises as to how limited the government should be to ensure security. In this case, should the government be able to use its authority as it sees fit, as Hobbes argues, or should there be a limit to governmental power, as Locke and Mill argue? I believe that a powerful government can exist and provide its citizens with necessary security while still being limited. The state does not have to be large to achieve this. Although Locke and Mill both have a fair understanding of what the limits of government should be, I find Locke's understanding more compelling. Locke writes that although the government should restrict our freedom so that we avoid returning to the state of nature, the amount of restrictions must be limited. For Locke, we are all in the state of nature before the creation of any form of government (289). And since humans tend to live in groups and desire to avoid a state of war, humans are subject to a common power creating a common government and renouncing natural power. Therefore, once this contract is created, only then do we exit the state of nature. Hobbes, on the other hand, writes that the sovereign should have as much authority as possible to rule as necessary. However, Hobbes, like Locke, believes that ... middle of paper ... is something other than that. Mill has the good idea of ​​balancing freedom and limits, but that is not enough. Hobbes, on the other hand, proposes a well-thought-out government. However, the fact that he believes that for a government to work it must be huge immediately makes me think of a monarchy. I believe that people should have the right to defend their beliefs as well as the right to oppose the government if they believe that the laws imposed by the government are not moral. However, if we submit to Hobbes's form of government, we give up any right to disagree with the sovereign. Locke's governmental proposal is therefore a balance between that of Hobbes and that of Mill. After all, when a man leaves the state of nature, it is not to create an absolute monarchy, as Hobbes believed, but to create a form of civil government..