The arguments of Locke and Rousseau share many features in common—a concern with the state of nature, an original contract, consent, etc…Nonetheless, they defend remarkably different solutions to the problems posed by political life. What element(s) of their arguments does the most work driving their divergent conclusions? In the area(s) where they disagree, whose account is more persuasive?

Do not use outside sources other than Locke (Second Treaties), Rousseau (Discourse on Inequality and Social Contract)