idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
That's not just my definition, it's the definition used when this country was founded. Everything we do is a balance between infringement of liberty and the necessities of society.
You brought it up, dumbass.
Brought what up? Are you saying that my use of liberty in this thread is not consistent with that which the US was founded on (John Locke's definition)? I suspect you are confused somewhere.
Quote:
We use John Locke's definition of liberty. Which is NOT the state of nature.
Er? As we used the phrase it *is*. WTF? You said:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The state of nature is, by definition, the state humanity in the complete absence of social organization.
John Locke, in his second treatise on government, in chapter 2 (which happens to be titled "Of the State of Nature", in the
very first freaking paragraph, said:
John Locke wrote:
Sec. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
Now, lest you lost track, I also said just a bit ago:
gbaji wrote:
The point is to examine what that state would be like and then formulate a set of social rules so as to retain as close to that state as possible while also having a government and working society.
Which is precisely what this work by Locke attempts to do. A work which some other folks took to heart and decided to try to make work in the real world. The result was the US.
Quote:
Locke, in his second treatise, wrote:
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 power shall enact according to the trust put in it.
Any law passed by a representative legislative body is not a violation of liberty under Locke's definition of the term. But feel free to try again.
You honestly interpret that sentence that way? I guess that explains a lot!
I'll give you a hint: He's not saying that being under legislative power doesn't infringe liberty. He's saying that liberty should never be infringed
except by a legislative power given consent to so govern. He's saying that man gives up his liberty to be governed, but should only do so sparingly and when he's put his trust in said government not to abuse the power that has been given. If you read further, he also explains why man might choose to do this.
He absolutely was not saying that as long as he's part of a commonwealth that the laws thus enacted magically cease to be infringements of his liberty. Quite the opposite in fact:
John Locke wrote:
Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
Sec. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.
Clearly, he viewed placing oneself under the rules of a government (even one trusted with that power) as an infringement of liberty. He argues that it is a
necessary sacrifice though. Because absent doing this, our liberty is easily taken away. So we agree to lose some liberty to a government of our choice, with the understanding that it will act to protect the remainder of our liberty. For failing to do that, we'll likely end out subject to a government that will not limit its infringement at all.
The larger (and more relevant) point being that we should always keep this in mind and act to limit our own government's actions towards us. Certainly, the idea that there's no loss of liberty as long as it's our government passing the laws is absurd.
