Which philosopher believed that people were inherently evil and that government should control them?

Explanation:

In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?

The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.

congress seems to have some powers the states do not have. they can do some pretty big things, they can declare war. and they can lead armies and navies. they also have the power to create a mail delivery system, make foreign treaties, print and borrow money, (both states and congress can do that)and make rules for certain places, i think they said the western states.  

the new government has been a big to growing their country! they are getting new land over west. and they are passing laws which to settle boundary issues.  

although most of this information sounds good for them, bad for us, there are some weaknesses from their plan. the people are still having issues with taxes and trading goods, they also don't have a main leader such as a chief or a president. they also have trouble with currency. the states are printing out so much money the national currency is beginning to be worthless. so things are getting hard to handle over here.  

some of the americans like the new government and think that even if they could ask about changing it they would be ignored. daniel shays got a group of people who hated the new government and decided to attack. this could become either worse or better.

(one-paragraph analysis)  

i think that they may start a war or some sort of big attack to make them change their government. most americans just don't want to discuss it. but i think that daniel man will speak up for them. if they do scare them they will get a better government and be able to deal with their issues better! i think that is what is going to happen next in the u.s., sincerely

lorelei     hope this i had some from the internet u   can report me if u want

d is the right answer