Every kind of strong tyranny may be defended by his principles.
In the nineteenth century Carlyle was the finest exponent of "strong" government, and generally the leaders of the Tory party have been its advocates, particularly in the attitude to be taken towards subject races.
JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704) Locke, setting out to vindicate the Whig Revolution of 1688, rejects Hobbes' view of the savagery of primitive man, and invents "a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation"-- equally, as we know to-day, far from the truth.

Locke's primitive men have a natural right to personal property--"as much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property"-- but they are as worried and as fearful as Hobbes' savages.

So they, too, renounce their natural rights in favour of civil liberty, and are happy when they have got "a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected on it." According to Hobbes, once having set up a government, there was no possible justification for changing it--save national peril; and a bad government was to be obeyed rather than the danger of civil war incurred.
But Locke never allows the government to be more than the trustee of the people who placed it in power.

It rules by consent of the community, and may be removed or altered when it violates its trust.

Hobbes saw in the break-up of a particular government the dissolution of society.