Hobbe's View

I think that everyone might be a little confused about what a covenant is. A covenant is not a document, which everyone comes together and writes down little rules about what the sovereign and what he can and cannot do. Like I had previously stated it is a formal agreement that says all people give up their free will to the sovereign in exchange for peace and security. That is all it is. I am confused about McKenzie’s point though; as to how not being able to agree upon one leader, proves Hobbes view on humans to be false? I am really confused as to where this conversation is going, and I think we need to stay true to the main question Why cant mankind live sociably in nature? So far it sounds like people are both agreeing and disagreeing with Hobbe’s view saying that the characteristics Hobbe’s says humans have (competition, comparison, reason, speech, free will/no fear, covenant) can be used both for good and for bad. This is true. Although, Hobbe’s main reason for having one leader that looks out for the best for the country is because he believes people are dangerous when they are not controlled. This being said, it is completely true. And I just don’t see how anybody could even disagree with that. Without rules, the outcome will be awful and people would go crazy.