Another thing with which Locke differs from Hobbes is his view of the human rights. For Locke, human rights are rights that every human holds and they belong to all humans, and are inalienable, that is they are not transferable to anyone else.  If someone tries to restrict one man’s human rights for Locke that is equal to slavery.  He set forth the view that “the State exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens”.  Moreover, if the State (government) fails to retain the natural rights of its citizens, than they are allowed to stand up to it and protest against. The same is today in most of the democratic countries, where people if not satisfied with the measures and regulations that the government lays down raise their voice and oppose them. Following this further, Locke does not see the state of nature as something bad as Hobbes does, and therefore, he claims that is better for the people to reject the particular government and to return to the state of nature,  than to live in an oppressed regimes.Nevertheless, despite the ‘free man’ that Locke stands for, he still points out that people should engage in a social contract. He says that we should partially give up some of our rights, but not the right of life, liberty and property,  for impartial justice. Furthermore, the social contract cannot be concluded without the explicit consent of the people. “Property is the linchpin of Locke’s argument for the social contract and civil government because it is the protection of people’s property, including their property in their own bodies, that men seek when they decide to abandon the State of Nature”.  Locke’s property is pre- state institute determined by natural law and the property is a result of individual’s labor.  For him the right of property is a right to life, freedom and estate.  He connects the human’s/one person’s rights with having property; the one who does not own property does not have rights.