|
|
 Locke's argument would be valid if there was good and enough for others to labour upon and gain wealth (Locke, 20), but since there is not because of unequal property, he has merely set up a system in which the government could be overthrown, but wealth maintained in the same hands. If no man should appropriate more than he can use and beyond this share is for others (Locke, 20), what right does man have to massive property when others are starving and have none? Locke would probably argue that the fruits of their labour will grant them property and that they should work harder, but on what property should they labour upon, if all property has been divided? Today, farmers are paid not to grow or to burn excess grain and food. Does not this unused share of land and the right to labour upon it then belong to others? If unequal ownership is started with the appropriation of property, do not the laws that applied to that appropriation apply ad infinitum?
No man has the obligation to put his life on the line unless to do so would cause the downfall of the sovereign. Hobbes states that "when the defence of the commonwealth, requireth at once the help of all that are able to bear arms, every one is obliged; because otherwise the institution of the commonwealth, which they have not the purpose, or courage to preserve, was in vain" (270). The only reason to set up a commonwealth is to exit of the State of Nature or State of War and enter the State of Man or State of Law. Since, however, there is no authority or power to enforce a covenant between commonwealths, all commonwealths are in a State of War with each other, and it is the obligation of every man in a commonwealth to defend against the enemy in time of need. If the citizens in a commonwealth refuse to defend the commonwealth, the covenant between the citizens is void and the commonwealth reverts back to the State of Nature in which every man is at war with every man. Logically, the rational man would choose to defend the commonwealth since not to do so would be to put their self preservation at risk. The first Law of Nature states "That every man, ought to endeavor Peace, as far as he has hope in obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of Warre" (190). Man in seeking peace makes a covenant with his fellow man to set up a sovereign. There can be no covenants between sovereigns, because there is no power to enforce a covenant. Therefore all sovereigns are in a state of war with each other. If a citizen wishes peace he must defend the commonwealth "otherwise the institution of the commonwealth, which they have not the purpose to preserve was in vain" (270), and we are all in the State of War.
|
| |
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList