Which political rights and obligations, according to them, result from such relationships?

Philosophy – John Locke and Thomas Hobbes’s
The intent of the paper is to discuss the views or attitudes manifested in the reading, rather than your own opinions on the topic. That is: you should ideally come up with something interesting and original to say (not mere summary), but it should something interesting and original about what our authors mean. (In particular: I dont expect or encourage you to reach a judgment about whether what they say is correct or not.) If you are upset by something one of our authors says, or ?nd it ridiculous, you should use that as an excuse to try and understand better why someone would say such a thing. For a good comparison paper, remember that the comparison should be interesting. This means, for example, that the paper should not read like two shorter papers (one on each author) stuck together. Also it should say something non-obvious about their similarities and di?erences. (It is always possible to make any two positions sounds similar if one is vague enough. But that isnt interesting.) ACTUAL PROMPT HERE: Use John Locke and Thomas Hobbes as the authors here. Under what conditions, according to our authors, and in what respects, and for what purposes, may one human being, or one group of human beings, legitimately act as the agent (or representative or, in Hobbess terminology, person) of another (individual or group)? What rights and/or obligations result on each side of the relationship (the author and the agent, the represented and the representative)? In particular: what role(s) do they see for such agency (representation) in the initial formation and/or in the continued operations of a political community? Which political rights and obligations, according to them, result from such relationships? What, if anything, do they think serves to enforce them (i.e., to protect the rights from infringement or to ensure that the obligations will be ful?lled)? In what respects, or on what conditions, or for what purposes, on the other hand, do they think agency/representation is either a bad idea (ill advised), illegitimate, or simply impossible? To the extent that our authors disagree about these matters, how does this result disagreements over the possible and/or advisable ways of organizing political society? You can cite either of their writing. Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan John Locke: Two Treatises of Government in 1689