HELP IMMEDIATLY!!!
 

I have an to know what this paragraph means and it is beyond stumping me!!

it is from John Locke's Second Treatise Of Government.

It is Chap. 2 (A state of nature) Sec.14 (obviously)... anyone help me.


Sect. 14. It is often asked as a mighty objection, where are, or ever were there any men in such a state of nature? 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. 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. 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.

A philosophy emergency, eh? What time is it due? :)

lol in like two hours

A requisite for understanding this paragraph is understanding Locke's "state of nature":

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..)

Thank you very much. Work has been beyond hectic and didn't findout about this work till 3 hours ago. but thank you... i think ive got it ... i was close to that earlier but didnt understand the agreement aspect of it. also ( i just want to be clear)... did he believe that those people (who take action THEMSELVES to punish wrongdoers) are in a state of nature because they seperated themselves from law and influence of they government?

Yep -- any man under influence by government or social contract could not be in the state of nature. Locke's main point in that section was demonstrating that the state of nature DOES exist and HAS existed, as Hobbes (who he borrows from and also refutes) never really elaborated on whether the state of nature existed, but merely defined it.

Is it just by default, then, that a state of nature has existed? Is it then because men have been responsible for law that it must have been the default while they thought up law? I guess I'm trying to ask WHY he thinks it HAS and DOES exist, specifically. Why can't it be that the man was always in a state of self-law (or is that just naming 'state of nature' something different). 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.. :)

He's saying that your objection is a common objection. He continues:

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.

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:

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.

You're pretty much there -- State of Nature is the default anarchy that is present when no laws or governments are there to enforce them. It is an "every man for himself" philosophy, so yes.. it is present any time there are no laws or lawkeepers to enforce them.

He says in the paragraph you quoted that the international world is the state of nature. This means that there are no meaningful laws regulating the behavior of nations. The other important example he gives is of "uncivilized" places like America, where one also finds the state of nature.

The state of nature had existed even in Europe, if you went back far enough in time, I imagine Locke would say. I think that Locke's state of nature was supposed to be a historical account of the origins of government in addition to being a normative tool.

thank you very much all... class is starting but ill tell you how it went later.... thanks again.

Please don't say that he used an example of a man selling a truck.

Here, the word truck means 'trade'. An older use of the English word.
Sorry, I'll take my pedant hat off now.

TRUCK YOU!!! :)

LOL! anyway, it went well. thx very much. ill comeback more often to shoot the $&%!. okies.

Great string of thought and information.
I fear, I may soon be reading a lot.

I truely enjoyed following this post.

Thanks to all.

Now, of to read something new to me. Maybe I'll start a thread for your help.