Comment: John Locke #8 - #16 - #23 State of War and Slavery.

(See in situ)


John Locke #8 - #16 - #23 State of War and Slavery.

John Locke - 2nd Treatise on Civil Government: LESSON.

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

#8. "And thus, in the state of Nature, one man comes by a power over another, but yet "NO ABSOLUTE OR ARBITRARY POWER TO USE A CRIMINAL", when he has "got him in his hands", according to the "passionate heats or boundless extravagancy" of his OWN WILL, but only to retribute to him so far as "CALM REASON" and conscience dictate, what is "proportionate to his transgression", which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint. "

-------

When the police seen in this video exceeded these bounds, then they themselves fell into these next categories as the aggressor and criminal described by Locke:

-------

Chapter 3: Of the State of War

16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by "word or action", not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a "state of war" with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has "exposed his life" to the other's power "to be taken away by him", "or any one that joins with him in his defence", and espouses his quarrel; it "being reasonable and just" I should have a "right to destroy" that "which threatens me with destruction"; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so "may be treated as a beast of prey", those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him "whenever he falls into their power".

17. And hence it is that "he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power" does thereby put himself into a "State of War" with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a "design upon his life".

For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power "without my consent" would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and "destroy me too when he had a fancy to it";

for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom -- i.e. "make me a slave".

To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that in the state of Nature would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than "by the use of force", so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him;

because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, "let his pretence be what it will", I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, "take away everything else".

And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e., "kill him if I can"; for to that hazard does he "justly expose himself" whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of Nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation; and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction are one from another. Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the "right of war" even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow-subject.

Thus, a thief whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, "I may kill" when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat, because the law, "which was made for my preservation", where it cannot interpose to secure my life from "present force", which if lost is capable of "no reparation", "permits me my own defence" and the "right of war", a "liberty to kill" the aggressor, because the "aggressor allows not time to appeal" to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable.

Want of a common judge with authority "puts all men in a state of Nature"; "force without right upon a man's person" makes a "state of war" both where there "is, and is not, a common judge".

20. But when the actual force is over, the state of war ceases between those that are in society and are equally on both sides subject to the judge; and, therefore, in such controversies, where the question is put, "Who shall be judge?" it cannot be meant who shall decide the controversy; every one knows what Jephtha here tells us, that "the Lord the Judge" shall judge. Where there is no judge on earth the appeal lies to God in Heaven. That question then cannot mean who shall judge, whether another hath put himself in a state of war with me, and whether I may, as Jephtha did, appeal to Heaven in it? Of that I myself can only judge in my own conscience, as I will answer it at the great day to the Supreme Judge of all men.

Chapter 4: Of Slavery

21. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule. (APP Note: See this exact wording in the Rights of the Colonists) The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it. Freedom, then, IS NOT what Sir Robert Filmer tells us: "A liberty for every one to do what he lists (WANTS), to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws"; but freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the "law of Nature".

22. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life together. For a man, not having the power of his own life, "CANNOT BY COMPACT" or his "OWN CONSENT" enslave himself to ANY ONE, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases.

Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life CANNOT GIVE another "power over it". Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life by some act that deserves death, he to whom he has forfeited it may, when he has him in his power, delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service; and he does him no injury by it. For, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.

23. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else but the state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive, for if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases as long as the compact endures; for, as has been said, no man can by agreement pass over to another that which he hath not in himself -- "a power over his own life"."...

-------

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

APP Daily Paul Articles: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.