Niceness is the wrong lens to use for acting in a civilised way. Game theory generally recommends cooperation; in practical real-world situations most of the games we play are ones where the best situation comes from negotiation. The issue is more the truly enormous number of actors who either have remarkably short short time preferences, an unreasonable tolerance for risk or who are just unpredictable. That is one of the central themes of the whole liberal project, of course. How to minimise the amount of force required to contain irrational actors.

An easy example is that the scariest people to run in to in a dark ally are the drugged up types; because the problem is they don't have the ability to make decisions while considering the pros- and cons- over a couple of months and their normal behaviour isn't predictive of what they are about to do.

Someone who is truly horrible and comfortable with the idea of barbarism is actually pretty easy to get along with if they're happy to work with long term goals and are predictable in their deployment of violence. Their social place is probably in the military or police force. Or dentistry if they want more consensual torment.

Machiavelli. Not just the Prince but his other works. He reads remarkably modern. There are many "Machiavelli Readers" that will provide a curated selection.

Cicero and Plato.

This is just a very casual, even pop cultural characterization of how these two thinkers are commonly seen. I would expect people to have come across more substantive characterizations during an early high school history class, but perhaps I'm overgeneralizing my experience.

In any case, if you're looking for an approachable yet good book, I recommend reading Edward Feser's "Locke"[0]. The focus is obviously on Locke, but you can't really appreciate Locke without also getting into some Hobbes, which the books does.

[0] https://a.co/d/02c3fLFZ

Economist magazine editor once said in an interview that Republican/conservative are open regulations for businesses and closed on people. Labour/democrats are tight on business and more welcoming to the people.

Economist editorial attempts to be open on both sides.

The question is not what state humans arein, but what state other humans would be when interacting with them. In other words, are other humans nice to me? I like it when they are nice to me. In return, I will also be nice to them.

Read Graeber & Wengrow

Oh totally. I actually don’t like Locke’s position much either, he’s too libertarian for my taste (I would like the state to provide healthcare &c &c). But if I had to choose I’d choose Locke over Hobbes. Hobbes is… real dark.

If you don't trust individuals, you're going to need an institution (or private security) to protect you from them. Police, laws, etc.

No, because people exist outside of government.

The idea that the USA is anti regulation is profoundly ignorant.

Just because I prefer Locke to Hobbes if you forced me to choose doesn't mean I'm some sort of anti-regulation libertarian. Far from it. But if you actually read Hobbes you will see that:

* He thinks everyone should be compelled to worship in the state-sanctioned religion

* Censorship of publications, teaching, etc. is necessary because ideas can be dangerous.

* Separation of powers (e.g. between executive, legislature, judiciary) is bad; he wants a single unitary sovereign with unlimited power.

* The sovereign is above the law

* Resisting a tyrannical sovereign is bad

...and that's why I'd pick Locke over Hobbes. And I think most of us would too.