IS HOSTILITY TO SELF-DEFENSE PART OF CLASS WARFARE ?

David, I think you're wrong. You can get nearly anyone to concede the right of self defense. Problem is, you cannot get so many to support the means of defending oneself. It's as if we're all supposed to be in our mid twenties, large of stature, and athletic by nature.

Your premise is ludicrous.

I suggest you read Locke's second treatise on government.
It answers your question rather well as to what you give up by joining a society and why.

I suppose you read about that Doctor in Conn, whose wife and 2 daughters were killed and his house then burned to the ground by two savages, haven't you?

The doctor was bashed over the head, but he did manage to escape from the burning house.

If he had owned a loaded gun, would all of this have happened?

(When my father was alive, he always slept with an armed gun under his bed).

David, I think you're wrong.
You can get nearly anyone to concede the right of self defense.
Problem is, you cannot get so many to support the means of defending oneself.
It's as if we're all supposed to be in our mid twenties, large of stature, and athletic by nature.

Its amazing how simple it is really, you cant be dominant if the people you want to submit are capable of defending themselves, ergo you are not dominant

Half a century has passed
since the last time that I read it.

§128. For in the State of Nature, to omit the liberty he has of innocent Delights, a Man has two Powers.

The first is to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permission of the Law of Nature: by which Law common to them all, he and all the rest of Mankind are one Community, make up one Society distinct from all other Creatures, and were it not for the corruption and vitiousness of degenerate Men, there would be no need of any other, no necessity that Men should separate from this great and associate into less Combinations.

The other power a Man has in the State of Nature, is the power to punish the Crimes committed against that Law. Both these he gives up when he joyns in a private, if I may so call it, or particular Political Society, and incorporates into any Commonwealth, separate from the rest of Mankind.

§129. The first Power, viz. of doing whatsoever he thought fit for the preservation of himself, and the rest of Mankind, he gives up to be regulated by Laws made by the Society, so far forth as the preservation of himself, and the rest of that Society shall require; which Laws of the Society in many things confine the liberty he had by the Law of Nature.

§130. Secondly, the Power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force, (which he might before imploy in the Execution of the Law of Nature, by his own single Authority, as he thought fit) to assist the Executive Power of the Society, as the Law thereof shall require. For being now in a new State, wherein he is to enjoy many Conveniencies from the labour, assistance and society of others in the same Community, as well as protection from its whole strength; he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity and safety of the Society shall require; which is not only necessary but just, since the other Members of the Society do the like.

§131. But though Men when they enter into Society, give up the Equality, Liberty, and Executive Power they had in the State of Nature, into the hands of the Society, to be so far disposed of by the Legislative, as the good of the Society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself his Liberty and Property; (For no rational Creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse) the power of the Society, or Legislative constituted by them, can never be suppos'd to extend farther than the common good; but is obliged to secure every ones Property by providing against those three defects abovementioned, that made the State of Nature so unsafe and uneasie. And so whoever has the Legislative or supream Power of any Commonwealth, is bound to govern by establish'd standing Laws, promulgated and known to the People, and not by Extemporary Decrees; by indifferent and upright Judges, who are to decide Controversies by those Laws; And to imploy the force of the Community sat home, only in the Execution of such Laws, or abroad to prevent or redress Foreign Injuries, and secure the Community from Inroads and Invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end, but the Peace, Safety, and publick good of the People.

§142. These are the Bounds which the trust that is put in them by the Society, and the Law of God and Nature, have set to the Legislative Power of every Commonwealth, in all Forms of Government.

First, They are to govern by promulgated establish'd Laws, not to be varied in particular Cases, but to have one Rule for the Rich and Poor, for the Favourite at Court, and the Country Man at Plough.

Secondly, These Laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately but the good of the People.

I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THAT OWNING PROPERTY NEGATES ALL OF THAT LOCKE BULLSHIT.

IF I DONT WANT TO BE A PART OF SOCIETY WHERE CAN I GO?

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.

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.

ALL THAT "TRUE FREEDOM" GARBAGE, GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY ISNT CALLED TRUE FREEDOM! ITS CALLED GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY!

§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.

OGIONIK wrote:

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

Quote:

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..

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

§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.