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 must be able to use its authority in any way it wishes. Locke and Mill on the other hand believe that the government should be able to provide security to its citizens, but to do this the government does not need to be large, rather it should be limited. The question then arises of how limited the government should be to ensure security. In this case, should the government be able to use its authority in any way it chooses, as Hobbes argues, or should there be a limit placed on governmental power, as Locke and Mill argued? I believe that a powerful government can exist and provide its citizens with the necessary security while being limited. The government does not need to be large to achieve this goal. Although both Locke and Mill have a fair understanding of what the limits of government should be, I find Locke's understanding more persuasive. Locke writes that while the government should limit our freedom to avoid returning to the state of nature, the amount of the restriction should be limited. For Locke, we are all in the state of nature before any form of government is created (289). And since humans have a tendency to live in groups and wish to avoid the state of war, humans submit to a common power by creating a common government and renouncing natural power. Therefore, once this contract is created, it is only then that we exit the state of nature. Hobbes, however, writes that the sovereign should have as much authority as possible to govern as needed. However, both Hobbes and Locke believe... mid-paper... that it's more than just that. Mill has the right idea of ​​balancing freedom and limits but this is not enough. Hobbes instead proposes a well thought out government. However, the fact that he believes that for government to work it must be huge immediately makes me think of a monarchy. I believe that people should have the right to speak openly about what they believe, as well as the right to go against the government if and when they believe that the laws imposed by the government are not moral. However, if we were to submit to Hobbes' form of government, we would give up any right to disagree with the sovereign. Therefore, Locke's governmental proposal is a balance between Hobbes's and Mill's. After all, when a man leaves the state of nature it is not to create an absolute monarchy, as Hobbes believes, but to create a form of civil government..