I choose the topic, actually. I’ve always thought of writing a paper on Locke and the right of revolution and the opportunity has finally presented itself to me. :)
Yes, I understand that, but the professor has sent you on a real rabbit trail. The proof is in the fact that you are on one now. I say that sympathetically.
The requirement to find someone “who was against the “idea....”, is a task in itself. And, different from finding someone against revolution as a “right”.
Locke versus Hobbes
http://jim.com/hobbes.htm
Hobbes:
Men cannot know good and evil, and in consequence can only live in peace together by subjection to the absolute power of a common master, and therefore there can be no peace between kings. Peace between states is merely war by other means.
No right to rebel. “there can happen no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign; and consequently none of his subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his subjection.” The ruler’s will defines good and evil for his subjects. The King can do no wrong, because lawful and unlawful, good and evil, are merely commands, merely the will of the ruler.
Locke versus Machiavelli
Comparing views on the relationship between the individual and that state.
by Edward Blades on 28 November 2011
https://prezi.com/52ikcpig4ln4/locke-versus-machiavelli/