I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THAT OWNING PROPERTY NEGATES ALL OF THAT LOCKE BULLSHIT.
Actually, you have just shown you have never read Locke but are just spouting your own BS.
Actually, no. gov't owning of property negates society somehow being voluntary, BECAUSE IF THEY OWN THE LAND, THERE IS NOWHERE TO GO
IF I DONT WANT TO BE A PART OF SOCIETY WHERE CAN I GO?
You can go where ever you want. The problem is you have to deal with a society that has banded together to protect itself from sociopaths that want to do whatever they feel like.
Wrong, the gov't owns the property, ergo i cannot go anywhere without infringing upon a society if my goal was to leave that society. sorry nice try..
NOWHERE!. ITS EITHER BE PART OF SOCIETY OR BE PART OF PRISON SOCIETY. (I CAN SEE IT NOW, LIVING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, ALL DRESSED IN ANIMAL SKINS ROFL HAHA, AND PARK RANGERS ROLL UP "SIR YOUR COMING WITH US!") ITS SORTA FUNNY BUT TRUE.
So your goal is to live without property? This after you said it is property that negates Locke?
that doesnt exactly make sense... wouldnt that in effect be agreeing with me?
UTTER NONSENSE, I NEVER LIKED SOME OF LOCKES IDEAS, ESPECIALLY THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BS, ITS NOT A CONTRACT, ITS AN ULTIMATUM.
THERES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Hardly an ultimatum since as Locke points out society has to provide what the people in that society want. You are free to work to change the social contract or ignore it. You are not free to dictate what the majority of other people should want.
nor is society free to dictate what i want, But its not voluntary. its either do or face consequences, and thats an ultimatum.
ALL THAT "TRUE FREEDOM" GARBAGE, GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY ISNT CALLED TRUE FREEDOM! ITS CALLED GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY!
Locke never calls giving up the "perfect freedom" of the natural state anything other than giving up freedom. He never calls it "true freedom."
Correct, i mistakelent thought he did, but it was in another debate someone said locke called it true freedom, thanks for the correction.
§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 'tis 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 this Condition, which however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: And 'tis not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to joyn 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.
§124. The great and chief end therefore, of Mens 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.
It seems you want the protections of society without the restrictions. You are not willing to live in a world of uncertainty where anyone or any society stronger can take your skins or kill you if they so desire.
You would be wrong, what protections does society grant me? society makes me weak, society makes it so i cant grow my own food, or attain my own land, society means paying for things i dont use, to subject myself to a system where i will be forced to compete against people who have clear and definite advantages (being set up to fail), to see people enjoying society with these advantages, to be seen as an outcast because of my disadvantages, to be set up to fail, and be punished for that failure, society to me means sacrifice for nothing, police do not protect me, doctors will save my life but in doing so subject me to further monetary debt of which i already struggle to evade, we are PAYING FOR A WAR IN IRAQ, THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA DO NOT WANT THIS WAR, by your definitions, society is a failure already.
PEOPLE DO NOT NEED TO BE CITED FOR CROSSING THE STREET AT THE WRONG AREA (how exactly is this benifiting society again?), ANYMORE THAN THEY NEED TO BE PUNISHED FOR INGESTING CERTAIN CHEMICALS, THE SOCIETY OF TODAY IS A FAR CRY FROM (******* caps lock!) what locke is describing. if society was how locke "described" it i would have no qualms about it, but it is not. "society" today does whats best for the rich, for the priviledged, not for the general population, the working class.
Society does not benifit me, society benifits from me. Oh yeah, clean drinking water with so much chlorine in it i want to puke, so i provide my own, food with hormones and chemicals, contant pollution, destruction of the environment, this is what society brings me?
This is what i should sacrafice freedom for? for contant destruction and exploitation of our home? twisting and deformation, abuse, neglect and incompetency in creation of new laws? for obvious corruption that goes unpunished yet, i am held accountable for the most minor of offenses?
To see police break the law every day, supposed defenders of the law, with impunity, to fear the law more than i fear the adverse effects of not having said laws?
Sure, society is awesome.
i will quote aristotle "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god."
Wow, couldn't have said it better. If it werent for females i would leave society in a heartbeat.