Quote:
|
Pretty much I guess what I really would like to know is what premise he has to support that it DOES and HAS existed.
|
Locke wrote Section 14 especially for you, then..
Quote:
|
It is often asked as a mighty objection, where are, or ever were there any men in such a state of nature?
|
He's saying that your objection is a common objection. He continues:
Quote:
|
To which it may suffice as an answer at present, that since all princes and rulers of independent governments all through the world, are in a state of nature, it is plain the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state.
|
Simply stated, he says: "Well.. the simple answer is that since there are princes and rulers of independent governments all through the world right now, then the state of nature OBVIOUSLY exists." This line is difficult to understand for me, because of his use of "independent governments." By independent governments, he's talking of those in the state of nature. They govern only themselves, and bring about their own justice on evildoers, without the necessity of a social contract or government with others.
Quote:
|
I have named all governors of independent communities, whether they are, or are not, in league with others: for it is not every compact that puts an end to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic; other promises, and compacts, men may make one with another, and yet still be in the state of nature.
|
He goes on to help us with his definition of independent communities and governments with this explanation. Not every compact (agreement) puts an end to the state of nature. According to him, there are some compacts that people can make (like selling things) which do not mean there is an agreement to form a government and a judging body. It's just an agreement that I'll sell you my truck for $500 -- it doesn't mean we're now a society governed by rules.
For those who still object, stating that "because you say it exists does not mean it exists" he continues with examples:
Quote:
|
The promises and bargains for truck, &c. between the two men in the desert island, mentioned by Garcilasso de la Vega, in his history of Peru; or between a Swiss and an Indian, in the woods of America, are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a state of nature, in reference to one another: for truth and keeping of faith belongs to men, as men, and not as members of society.
|
He references his predecessors (as any good writer should) and gives examples from other literature. The examples aren't as important as his final explanation. The agrement to sell a truck in Garcilasso de la Vega does not destroy a state of nature because it doesnt require a government, as above. He says that it is binding between the two men, not because they are members of the same society, but because that binding belongs to the men themselves.