Please discuss this post. In a two hundred word response

At the time of the Enlightenment era, Hobbes was a prominent absolutist, meaning that he was in great support of having a monarchy that held all the power. In the case of absolutism, a monarchy would be controlled by one person who would have all of the power and no checks or limitations to what they are doing. During the Enlightenment era, Locke was very passionate about getting rid of divine right, which allowed the next monarch to be put into place, just by being the son of the king. Locke believed that everyone (at the tie men), was entitled to the three Ls life, liberty, and land. He felt that divine right did not protect this, and by allowing the king not to be accountable for protecting the people. Locke ultimately wanted a larger governing body, that protected the rights of the people. Montesquieu felt that the type of Government that was needed during the time of the Enlightenment Era was a type of government that had separation of powers, where different people had legislative, executive, and judicial powers. He believed that these powers should remain separate so that they could create checks and balances on one another, and that this should not be a monarchy. The form of government that Montesquieu wanted during the Enlightenment Era later helped to design the governing system in America. Hobbes and Montesquieu wanted very different types of government, and the views that they had, had almost nothing in common. As Hobbes wanted one hereditary monarch that had complete control, Montesquieu wanted a government that was broken into sections and divided power so that no one person could become too powerful. Both Montesquieu and Hobbes shared some similarities in what they thought the government should look like Locke. As Locke was not in support of absolutism like Montesquieu and he wanted to hand more power to the people. However, Locke did not think that the monarchy was so horrible, such as the way that Hobbes saw it.