Rousseau v. Hobbes on Human Nature

I have an essay on this topic which I have rewritten about 5 times - consistently getting a C. This is what I have so far. Correct, elaborate, elucidate please.  (H=Hobbes, R=Rousseau)

H: people driven by their passions
R: ???

H: human nature is a problem to be solved with a proper government
R: human nature is good; government should not restrain it

H: restrict man's passions
R: preserve natural freedom

I am so lost in how to compare. If there is a knowledgeable gentleman who is willing to dedicate some time to this, I will reward you in some way.

Spoke to my teacher.

He said both give up their rights out of self-preservation.
Neither are good or bad.
Both form a social contract to preserve their rights

For Hobbes, the social contract is society and government together...so you cannot dissolve it because you would be dissolving society.

For Rousseau they are different. The social contract is indissoluble (the general will thing) but the monarch or ruler elected out of it can be removed.

This all stems back to their views on human nature. Hobbes' man is willing to have a coercive restraint on his behavior because he understands that he is at times driven by his passions.
Rousseau's man always acts in self interest and hence he does not need restraint.


He explained it a heck of a lot better but i forgot 90% of what he said.