Just spent some time studying Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Would appreciate insights on one or more of the below questions:

Some have claimed that Hobbes actually described “bourgeois man”—a person who takes for granted the conditions of a competitive market society. What array of historical conditions existed in Hobbes’s time such that a “science” of society could have plausibly discovered self-maximizing individuals in competitive markets?

Locke suggested that all men were morally entitled to “as good and as much” property-in-land as what had been rightly theirs in “the state of nature.” How then did he justify differential wealth?

Hobbes and Locke both understood that the state of nature might well produce severe inequalities, and a social contract, producing a commonwealth, would not mitigate them. Did either, then, endorse a political rebellion of victimized people against sovereign power? What, in contrast, was Rousseau’s view of rebellion, derived from his notion of “nature”?