the constitution and why it became the "constitution"

    The constitution, is basically the "passed with flying colors" version of the articles of confederation. Since the states became confused and could not decide on a leader, they made the articles of confederation. The articles of confederation immediately failed because it had no value, no leader, no state could enforce laws and it dint do anything beside stating what people could do. Once the constitution came along, many things changed, even till now things are trying to be changed about it. so far there are exactly twenty-seven amendments on the constitution. These amendments got here also on the support of the people of the United states of america. so in the end, the constitution sets up safe boundaries. While keeping the rights and freedom of the people 

compromise between the colonists and king of england?

              To be blunt, there was no way the king of england would ever compromise to losing the money he would gain from the colonists and there was no way that the future members of those who wrote the declaration would ever believe that king George would simply make a change his ways because some people politely asked to change certain things. Because in King George's eyes he saw the thirteen original colonies as an asset and perhaps a child of its mother colony. This was obvious to many of the merchants and farmers, because certain things like tobacco, cotton and such things that couldn't grow bountifully in england were grown in the thirteen original colonies. These little signs like this said that a war was coming. that would definitely change both countries and or soon to be countries of their own.
                  Also the King of england would have also given signs of a compromise. For example, he didn't have to make such acts that raised the taxes of certain products. This certainly didn't help the thirteen colonies economy. upon the taxes from the products they bought from overseas, there were barbarous and persistent English  tax collectors. This raised a boiling point on both sides when neither of them could compromise. leading up to the Boston massacre and the Boston tea party. Besides if there was a compromise, the united states of america wouldn't be here today. As corrupt and cruel as america came to be, we wouldn't not be able to call this place "home". let alone north america or the united states, even Canada would have been sieged and taken over.
                

John Locke Vs Thomas Hobbs

  If i were to take sides in some debate that took place in the 1670's between both John Locke and Thomas Hobbs, i would take John Locke. Simply because as raw and undeveloped his argument it is, it's more hopeful than what Thomas Hobbs argument. Even though Thomas Hobbs argument is completely true, he in the end isn't offering any promising solutions that would help people out in the end. All I'm saying is if they guy is talking about tyranny and downfall, he should at least do something about it. Also its John Locke who by far has influenced his idea's far enough to reach this nation's ear. Thereby also influencing many other countries who were moving towards independence.
    Thomas Hobbs was no doubt an individualist much like John Locke, but he lacked ultimately finding and fixing the problems that individualism caused to many. Then John Locke came up with the "social contract" which was his solution that said it was necessary to sacrifice to certain rights and power's to maintain social order by the law. But those who are governed have a say on which set of rules they are governed by. This makes all the difference. In the end John Locke puts out a better argument, which is why i would take his side.

a world without goverment

          I believe a world without government, would be like a body without its vitamins. But when i say government I'm referring to a  system of regulations and fair rules that its citizens of that certain nation should follow. My take on government is pretty much "its corrupt, but that was inevitable". Because its almost impossible to have a fair government. Just like a painting, a government has cracks from its basic frame and foundation to the very little details. In these "cracks" this is where many authority figures or people with political power step into to fix it with their promises.
         If i could have restructured a government my own way. I would change the very foundation of government. for example to eliminate these cracks and flaws in government it would take a very drastic measure at first. just like the book 1984, privacy will be almost removed. This way it removes internal crime keeping the people in check. however from there establish some control, guidelines and order. From there bring back in fairness. however if things go wrong again then re establish the fear of constant surveillance and rights being removed. An extreme way to keep society in order, but it works because fear is what fuels the necessity to stay "under the radar"