Hi,

This paper is for my social science class and I would like to have at least 6 pages

(Excluding the Reference page, double-spaced, Font: 12-point Times New Roman).

Given the very short amount of time this paper must be done (48 hours) and some

background knowledge about Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Burke is preferred, the

price is negotiable and I will prioritize the scholars who studied or is studying social

science, more specifically the formation of social structure.

Requirements:

1. Comparing at least two of the six authors covered in this course.

The reading list for this class is

Hobbes, The Leviathan; Locke, Second Treatise of Government;

Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality and Social Contract;

Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.

2. Develop your own arguments, not just summarize the readings; exploring their similarities and differences.

Below are some ideas of this paper I have:

I want this paper’s focus to be the discussion on the around the thesis that

Therefore, the comparison between the different definitions (changeable) of legislator is essential to the analysis of the optimal social structure.

For the first body paragraph, I would like to focus on the author No.1’s discussion on the formation of legislator and the ideal mechanism he/she favors.

For the second body paragraph, I would like to do the similar thing for the second author and start comparing the difference of the two.

For the third body paragraph, I would like to bring some issues that presents in our modern legislative system and try to analyze them based on two authors’ theories that I choose.

Last paragraph will be devoted to the summary of the paper and some topics that act as an extension to the legislation of the society for reader to think about.

Here are some potential quotes that I want to use:

You can find more

“And from this it is evident, that he that giveth Counsell, pretendeth onely (whatsoever he intendeth) the good for him, to whom he giveth it (Hobbes 303).

“…or when there is need of it, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it by force” (Locke 81).

“It appears at first that men in that state, since they have neither any kind of moral realtion among themselves nor known duties, could be neither good nor evil” (Rousseau 81).

“since each gives himself entirely, the condition is equal for all, and since the condition is equal for all, no one has an interest in making it burdensome for others” (Rousseau 173)

“What are they (individuals) doing that they did not do more frequently and with greater danger in the state of nature, when, waging inevitable battles, they defended the means for preserving their life at the risk of losing it?” (Rousseau 186).