JBeukema
Rookie
- Banned
- #141
I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea? When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine. It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.
Who is this Locke and why should I care what he believed?
In Chapter 2, "Of the state of nature", Locke describes the "state of nature" in which men exist before forming governments:
Except for depending on the other man to not kill or steeal from him....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.
Really?A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another;
So this man
was born in an equal state compared to this child
?
he was born with and possesses no more than the child prior to his induction into the social contract?
Clearly, the man knows nothing of most species' social structures. From queen ants to silverbacks, the natural state is far from equal
might makes right
The man is delusionalwhich obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent,
Should? Wherefrom comes this shouldno one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....
He jumps froma gross misrepresentation of the word to prescriptive moral assertions.
Locke is a joke.
.
Last edited: