A requisite for understanding this paragraph is understanding Locke's "state of nature":
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by from Wikipedia
"State of nature" is a term in political philosophy used to describe the hypothetical or empirical condition of humanity when or if government did not exist. Alternately, a state of nature is the condition before the rule of law comes into being. Some have thought that there was a time before any government, any official monopoly on the initiation of the use of violence, came into being. The concept of a state of nature is an integral part of social contract theories.
|
Locke thought that any people who may legitimately take action THEMSELVES to punish wrongdoers are in a state of nature. So, he begins by saying: well, has there been or will there ever be people in this State of Nature (anarchy)? Well, the simplest answer is that yes.. we have and have had people who were without the influence of a government, and took care of wrongdoers through their own means.
He then goes on to clarify that someone can make an agreement with another without leaving the state of nature and forming a government. Although the examples he gives are agreements (like purchasing a truck) they do not remove the participants from the State of Nature because they are not agreements to form a community or a government.
(Also -- it kinda feels like you've got Philosophy homework due and you just want a quick 'n dirty answer... you might get more out of the class if you read multiple interpretations of Locke. They're all over the internet if you do a few quick google searches..)