POLITICS OF HUMAN NATURE Hobbes, Aristotle and Rousseau

These three authors speak differently about the political nature of human beings, touching different parts of this, handle different concepts that they believe are involved in shaping the spirit and convenience of man, then I will discuss each separately authors and then liken each of their visions.
Rousseau talks about the human condition that is innate to the birth of man is freedom, he tells us that man is born free, regardless if it is born in slavery, regardless of whether their parents are subject to this, human beings always born with an almost divine right is freedom, unlike this child when it grows, decided to sell their freedom to price their basic needs are satisfied, only then man can break the law, only if it decides .
The author also presents us with the first and the only natural society is the family, where the father and children represent the father as the head and the children born to the same as the town where the family brand Rousseau as the first contact social, where we learn the rules of the functioning and behavior, also, to mark the permanence of children in the family until their subsistence needs are met, from that moment, the natural bond disappears, so the children are Free obedience to their parents and the father is free of care he owed his children. So Rousseau brand and defines the family as the first model of political society.
Also the author talks about the war, issue shares with Hobbes, in the case of Rousseau, tells us that war is a human condition, drives like condition, and tells us that war can never give a man to a state, so that there is always the condition of war must be from state to state, the combats, duels, skirmishes are acts that do not constitute a state, so that each state can have as enemies only to other states and not men, as among things indistinct nature, can not be authentic relationships (Rousseau 2004), would be seriously something totally uneven.
We talk about the possibility that men united to elect its president, this is what builds a nation truly free, the ability of men to choose who governs them, to what we now call status, and finally and fundamental part, tells us that on the other hand each individual may have a particular will, opposite or completely different from the general will as a citizen, that is, as an individual man has an opinion, and the same man as a citizen may think differently or opposite.
For Hobbes, talks about nature has made men equal, differing in every way, without this deserves to be best man to man. As for strength, the weakest can compensate their physical weakness with mental strength, which means it can be just as dangerous as the physically stronger, Hobbes takes man as all the same, except their physical differences of course, but without These differences make the strongest can take advantage of the weaker comparison.
According to Hobbes, as regards mental skills, there is greater equality between men in physical capacity is concerned, prudence is the experience, the only thing that men reach in equal times. Men recognize that other franchises can be even more than the same, so you can not recognize that the other is equal to him, what better proof that men are equal in that sense, this idea Hobbes shows how men are so alike in thinking that there can not stand someone less than us.
A disadvantage is that it can equal that likes something 2 or more people, which will make the owner of that fight with others to defend it, and that is not stolen, and that the other will do anything to get it . A man to ensure their conservation, want to dominate with physical or mental power several men so that they do not threaten in its entirety and can maintain a certain peace with others.
To which Hobbes says that may be necessary for the conservation of a man, that this increase their dominance over their peers, just so I could maintain a state of peace between them and in them.

Hobbes talks about three types of natural discord in the nature of man competition 1st, 2nd and 3rd mistrust glory, these three discord afflict men to advance to attack, for safety and to generate reputation.
Moreover, Hobbes tells us that during the time men live without a common power to frighten all are in a state called war, a war that will set all against all, in this time of war, all good is lost, brings fear and danger of violent death, human life becomes solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
It has not always been the condition of war all against all, in the realms of war was the condition with similar forces, facing due to the envy of the independence of the other, in the war of all against all is nothing unjust notions of law and lawlessness, justice and injustice are out of place, where there is no common power, there is no law and where no law, no justice.
Hobbes on these terms does not say that justice and injustice are not virtues of the body or spirit, the feelings and passions are given to man in society is not alone, the passions that incline men to peace are fear of death , the desire of things for comfortable living and hope to get them through work, the man called natural laws.
Aristotle tells us the principle that the largest community is the city, a small town is like a big house, the natural development of man is the need to mate with his wife, as there is a natural desire to leave his other being similarity in the world.
Aristotle says that there are security reasons according to him, there must be a bond between them which by nature will obey rule and for the same reason, the difference from one to another, is that the boss has intelligence, and which is intended to be subject and be a slave by nature, is one that will fulfill the desires of love.
Taking into account the slave as property, which apparently believes is right, says the family is the community established by nature, as the Greeks give way to the woman, except for the barbarians who view slave woman and the same, the union of several families is the municipality, in turn the union of municipalities is the city, this is one of the things that exist in nature and therefore man is a political animal, whoever not part of a city is below what a man why man is considered the only political animal is the word, with which Aristotle concludes on this point, is that the gift of speech we Pat gave to the fruitfulness of the harmful, and we are the only animals that perceive the good from the bad, and other similar qualities, participation in these perceptions is common to the family and the city.
The man reaches perfection when is the best of animals, but in counterpart may be the worst when it is divorced from law and justice, on the other hand justice is something that is in the city, since the administration of justice is the order of the political community.
As you know, the city consists of families and these in turn are composed of slaves and free, its main components are the master-slave, the husband, the wife, the father-sons.
Likewise Aristotle gives us an overview of how believes that man has the innate ability of policy, the family learns from, mentions slavery as something totally normal, which currently could not do likewise, mentions visions of slavery that there are many, but the true is that which is part of the family forming part of the city.
We can conclude that the three authors take the man as a fundamental part in the formation of families, the three talk about common issues, but their times are different, the views are not too far apart, while Rousseau talks about the innate ability of freedom, Aristotle tells us that slavery is something necessary for the formation of the family, and so the city, Hobbes says that there is no place for slavery, all human beings are born equal, regardless of our physical differences, we are all equal.