According to Machiavelli, violence may be a necessary means in politics, but it is rarely sufficient. The Machiavelist ruler must be both a lion and a fox at the same time: he must know in which case cunning and trick yield better results than directly using violence (Abramson, 2014: 195). Machiavelli often expressed that there is evil in man’s nature. However, this conceptualization of evil is not of religious but of earthly. According to Machiavelli, the instinct that lies at the bottom of human behavior is the instinct of ownership. Because the human greed does not have a limit, individual desires and interests constantly conflict. For him, while some people would like to obtain something, the others are scared of losing what they already have. According to Machiavelli, who has a sense of power with zero sum, the amount of power does not change. An increase in one’s power means a decrease and even destruction in power of the others.

Martin Luther posted The Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the church of Wittenberg Palace. These theses had social and political demands as much as theological ones. These demands had three main consequences:

1. Catholic world was divided

2. The churches were brought under the control of the states.

3. The bourgeoisie used these these demands as a weapon against its opponents such as aristocracy and the Roman Catholic Church.

For Luther, the essence of religion lies in an inner life that is essentially mystical and nontransferable. On the other hand, the forms of religious exclusion and the services of the clergy were nothing but an aid or an obstacle to achieving this purpose. In his essay on the essence of Christianity, Martin Luther says: “A Christian is the most independent master and is not dependent on anyone; a Christian is the most obedient servant of all and is dependent on everybody.

Calvin claims that social order organized in accord with the true religion is composed of three elements:

1. The Governors, the source of duty is God.

2. Laws, as the products of natural justice imprinted in all minds by God.

3. The Governed, who are responsible to obey the governors as much as the laws of God,

Calvinist reformism dignifies work and personal success, and this constitutes the basis for capitalist development. Advanced capitalism, in turn, resolved the Calvinist limits of true religion around the believers of personal skills, industriousness and success.

Bodin defines the state as the administration of various family members and their common properties stem from the dominant power. Bodin does not discuss the state only at the level of political events like Machiavelli, but the state is a legitimate institution in accordance with the law and is not a stranger to values such as goodness, happiness, and order. The state’s sovereignty that ensures the unity and integrity of the political society is the foundation that makes the state as it is. Sovereignty is an absolute and continuous power.

Here are three principles of sovereignty for Bodin as given below.

1. Sovereignty is continuous because beyond the changing governments, the society remains the same. The continuity of sovereignty results from the idea of continuity of political society.

2. The continuous power makes law for the subjects, changes the law, makes the new one. The sovereign governor is not subject to the law.

3. Sovereignty, above all, is the power to make laws for everyone generally, and specifically and to change laws.

Bodin describes citizenship as being the subject of the sovereign. According to Bodin, besides being subjects of a common sovereign, citizens may have countless other connections among one another, but what makes them citizens is their being subjects. In relation to this, Bodin defined sovereignty as the supreme form of power which was not restricted by law over citizens and subjects, and he analyzed this power. Unlike Machiavelli, Bodin says that the fact that power of sovereign is not absolute, does not mean it’s being unlimited. 

, 2016: 410). Bodin’s preference for the best form of government is monarchy. Bodin bases his preference for monarchy on three basic reasons.

1. By stating that all-natural laws lead us to monarchy, he claims that monarchy is the most appropriate form of state to nature.

2. He expresses that the talented people in the country could come into prominence only in the monarchy.

3. He asserts that the fact that sovereignty that is absolute, indivisible and continuous, can only take place in the form of monarchy.

The model of society that More represents in Utopia is authoritarian, patriarchal, and hierarchical. There is a total economic equality. The elderly, husbands and fathers have respect and authority. Property is collective, there is no competition, and everyone works towards common interests.

What Utopia is mainly concerned with is the happiness of people. According to More, happiness is not a singular thing. Happiness has a collective characteristic. The way to reach happiness is through implementing the equality principle. According to More, equality cannot be ensured in a state where property is monopolized and absolute. Thus, eliminating the ownership of property is the only way to distribute the wealth of the country equally and fairly and to make people happy.

According to Hobbes, the state of nature is not historical. When people are in the state of nature, they experience a constant uncertainty, conflict and violence. The state of nature is a state of war, which Hobbes has formulated as “a man is a wolf to another man”.

According to Thomas Hobbes, the result of insecurity is war: Individuals want to rule others and to dominate them to get rid of the state of insecurity. The state of equality requires to constantly cope with dangers to survive and to dominate others.

Hobbes says that there are three basic characteristics belonging to human nature that lead to conflict in the state of nature: competition, insecurity and honor.

The realm of freedom, according to Hobbes, seems to depend on the legitimacy of the sovereign, and on the individual. Since all the consenting parties are basically equal, all legitimate actions of the sovereign have to be applied to each and every member of the political community. Covenants, sovereigns or laws cannot negate the natural rights of an individual, i.e. right to self-preservation and right to life. Self-preservation phase becomes relevant when the sovereign cannot preserve peace and apply the covenant. All citizens are free to defend themselves even against the legal authority. In this sense, Hobbes bestows the right of resistance to the state.

Locke claims that each and every human individual is free, but he also sets some limits to this. Equality, according to him, is to have the equal rights for everyone to attain their own freedom, without being subject to any other’s will and authority.

Every individual has the right to make use of himself and his property in the way he wishes; however, he is not free to destroy himself or his property without a higher purpose than of its protection. The limits of freedom are determined by responsibilities derived from the natural law.

Locke claims that equality and freedom direct us to rationalism. When human individuals are supposed to be rational, it means that they have the ability to make a contract.

Locke sets some limits to property:

The limit of needs: We must leave enough, and as good, to those who need it.

The limit of spoilage and destruction: God does not give the world and its possessions to us to spoil or destruct them. These are supplied to meet the need of individuals. Individuals should not possess more than they need.

The limit of labor: Ad individual can only possess what he contributed his labor for.

According to Locke, the reasons of transition from natural state to political society are as follows:

1. The lack of a situated and commonly recognized law of common consent to refer in case of conflicts. 2. The lack of a common authority which can make decisions based on such a law.

3. The lack of an authority (jurisdiction) to exercise a punishment as a result of a rightful decision.