The States of Nature: Hobbes v Rousseau

In philosophy, the "state of nature" is the hypothetical way of life that existed before humans organized themselves into societies. In his 1651 work Leviathan, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes described man's life in this state as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Hobbes believed natural man to be in constant motion, concerned primarily (or perhaps even only) with the satisfaction of their selfish desires, ever engaged in "the war of all against all". More than a century later, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued, in contrast, that the state of nature is one of peace, freedom, and cooperation. War, he believed, did not exist until after societies, states, and all the rest of it came along. These contrasting beliefs about the basic nature of man - as basically (albeit simplistically) "good" or "evil" - has permeated philosophical and political discussions from antiquity to the present. What do you think man in his true "state of nature" is really like? And what does your answer mean for our understanding of society, law, and political power?