How did Locke's state of nature differ from Hobbes's state of nature?

In political philosophy, the state of nature refers to the hypothetical condition of humanity before the establishment of organized government. While both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke used this concept to justify political authority, their visions differed significantly.12

Hobbes’s State of Nature

For Hobbes, the state of nature is a condition of constant war, characterized by the "war of every man against every man". Because there is no common authority to enforce laws, individuals possess a natural right to everything, leading to a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". In this state, there is no justice or property, only a desperate struggle for self-preservation. Individuals escape this anarchy by entering a social contract to transfer their rights to an absolute sovereign, or Leviathan.123

Locke’s State of Nature

In contrast, Locke viewed the state of nature as a condition of freedom and equality, governed by the law of nature, which dictates that no one ought to harm another’s life, liberty, or property. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed individuals are naturally endowed with these rights. The state of nature is not necessarily a state of war but can be relatively peaceful; however, it lacks an impartial judge to settle disputes. Consequently, individuals form a commonwealth to protect their natural rights, and government authority remains conditional upon that protection.142