Yes, No, and not Applicable- A Response to Christian's Post

Like my post says, Rousseau and Hobbes would agree and disagree with your exclusive interpretation of them, as well as decline to answer- here's why.

Exclusive Traits:  Both theories of human nature display somewhat exclusive aspects;  Hobbes for example, claims that a totalitarian government is the only way for egotistical and selfish humans to behave in accordance with moral laws of a functioning society.  Rousseau cites the very cornerstone of institutional prominence paramount in Hobbes' theory as the very denigration of the noble savages of humankind.

Mutual Traits (Degrees):  Both theories also acknowledge the degree of goodness and the lack thereof in human nature.  For example, Rousseau champions the triumph of the noble savage as having the empathy to counteract egoistic tendencies, yet still acknowledges that this part of the human being does indeed exist, and even shows many examples in which the ego does triumph, via property and social constructs (institutions).  Hobbes is slightly less as "grey" as Rousseau, yet he still acknowledges that there is one thing that can actually control the unbridled selfishness of the human- an institution of law.  While both theories prefer a particular aspect of human nature, they do so only out of admission of the "other side," that exists.

Not Applicable:   Both theories are also extremely idealistic.  For example, how can Rousseau justify the complete denigration of institutions and property?  Surely, those with lots of political power and property would not willingly give it up without use of force.  In other words, it is possible that Rousseau ever thought his vision for humankind would ever be accomplished, much less attempted.  Hobbes' theory is also full of pragmatic holes- how can constantly egotistic humans be controlled by an absolute form of government?  Who does the governing?  Surely a human being in Hobbes' mind, would do unspeakable things with such use of absolute power.