State! Of War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!

The idea that the true nature of man is a state of constant war and struggle (as Hobbes would argue) is far too pessimistic for my taste. People born in a state of nature are essentially free (as Locke would argue). I will agree with Hobbes somewhat however in that pure unregulated freedom or “extreme freedom” leads to a state of war. This state of war arises out of conflicts over property, food, water, etc, which is bound to happen as families grow and take up more space in the world. Eventually, there will be too many people living in the world and humans will fall into a permanent state of war. To escape from this constant war people will form a social contract. This social contract will in turn establish a civil government. The purpose of this government is to maximize the freedoms of its citizens. A civil government should help return society back to the essential freedom and prevent the state of war from occurring.
Locke’s theory of the nature of man seems much more true to the behavior of human beings. People I believe are more likely to try live the best that they can with as little conflict as possible. I disagree with Hobbes that humans feed off the desire for competition and that our natural instinct is to seek out competition. Humans aren’t looking to kill for what they need. They are much more likely to want to compromise. Unfortunately conflicts are an inevitable when there is extreme freedom, but that does not make the true nature of man a war hungry creature.
Locke’s reasoning for why we need a social contract is much more appealing then the one which Hobbes puts forth. Although Hobbes and Locke agree that we need a social contract, Hobbes believes that we need it to ensure security of our survival, but that our freedoms could be repressed as long as it provides security. I however find this to be quite a repulsive society at best. Why would anyone want to exist in a society where all there is to life is survival? Hobbes pessimistic society although functional is clearly, not a desirable society. A society based on Locke’s theory on the other hand would give citizens of a state what they really want, freedom. It is true that this type of society may be less efficient and harder to maintain, but it is a much closer resemblance to the true nature of man then a Hobbes ideal society.
If we want to look at these two theories and then compare which one would be most like a Platonic society I will once again go with Locke. In the Crito Socrates tells us that we should listen to the wise (which can be interpreted as a civil government) as opposed to the majority. The people who are wise serve the purpose of returning society back to the Eidos. A Locke like government is very similar in that it helps to return people back to their true nature, which is to be essentially free.
Well now that we have this social contract and a civil government, how do we balance freedom and responsibility? We obviously want to maximize our freedoms but we can’t let extreme freedom occur because that leads to the state of war. This is where the responsibility of society and government come into play. The role of society and government is to maximize each others freedom but prevent freedoms that will lead us to the state of war. For example we can’t allow people to murder others because that sort of extreme freedom will cause society to plummet into chaos. But on the other hand we can’t give government so much power that is will repress all our freedoms. So we give government only enough power to protect itself but enough authority to stop injustice from occurring in society.