Except Locke didn’t aggrandize the state. Hobbes sole intention was to figure out a way to prevent civil wars. He’s not that special. I think he was a rhetorician and deeply religious. Ask your teacher, “If in Hobbes world people are assumed to not socially or economically cooperate to an acceptable level and that a “social contract” will solve this dilemma, what makes them able to successfully agree on the social contract?” You can mention that it would seem implausible to think people are too “brutish” to contract privately just one on one; so the logical solution is to get everyone together under one big contract? Everyone always solves others problems if two people can’t figure out, right? Sounds like snake oil to me.
Rousseau is equally idiotic. ‘The general will will be the guide, but it is not all’s will, all’s will would be chaos; the sovereign is the general will and therefore can never harm itself; if people refuse to bend to the general will, then they would need to be forced to be free.’
Sure. Sure…
Strauss on Hobbes Civil Association
Here is an essay on Bertrand Russell’s essay on Hobbes’ essay (tertiary sources, hahah)