Argumentative Essay on John Locke`s second Treatise of Government

Locke interprets the state of environment as a state of equality in which no one has power over another, and all are free to do as they please. He remarks, although, that this liberty does not equal license to misuse others, and that natural law exists even in the state of nature. Each one-by-one in the state of nature has the power to execute natural laws, which are universal. Locke states that natural law easily claims that penalty fit the crime--a individual in the state of environment can redress any crime to disappoint the lawbreaker from doing again it. According to the treatise all people are in a state of nature until a social contract is developed , that defines as them members of a political society.

He creates many assumptions in order to define the government and its functions.. First is the assumption of a system of morality--the natural regulation draws from from a theory of justice, a set of rights. No one would have any "rights" at all in the absence of a moral code, and there wouldn't be a standard of punishment.

He then defines war as a state of "enmity and destruction" brought about by one person's pre-meditated attempts upon another's life. In the text he believes law of self-preservation, is an integral to the law of nature, dictates that a person may kill another person in self-defense. However the law of nature does not discuss preservation of an individual, I the true law of nature is about preserving all those who take part in reason.. His delineation is founded upon the idea thead covering any aggression by one individual against another constitutes a dispute to that person's freedom. By this reasoning, one can justifiably murder a robber since an strike on one's property comprises a risk to one's liberty. Which in further reading seems to be refering property and personal wealth.

Then he outlines the differences between the state of nature and the state of war, noting that the two are NOT the same. He wants persons to accept as true that state of environment engages persons dwelling simultaneously, governed by reason, without a widespread superior, while the state of war occurs when persons make concepts of force upon other persons, without a widespread authority. In this case, the assaulted party has a right to war. Want of a widespread judge ...