Category Archives: Locke

by | September 16, 2020 · 4:36 am

Minimum Wage

One of the notions that is up for debate in the current state of affairs is the case of Minimum wage. It is a topic that continues to divide people on both sides of the political compass, some arguing that an increase in minimum wage is warranted as the increase in living expenses that has come over the past few decades have not been accompanied by an increase in minimum wage to support the people who are living in these said conditions, while others argue that increasing minimum wage will inevitably have the opposite affect and adversely affect people as it will lead to more problems for the class of people it’s trying to help. Since an individual’s rights are inherently his own, by the virtue of them owning themselves, until they fall under the social contract of a government, it is evident to see how an increase in minimum wage will indeed lead to an adverse affect. To further understand this inference, it is important to clarify why that is the case.

Minimum wage is the lowest wage permitted by law or by a special agreement. This would dictate that an employer would be required to pay a minimum amount to an employee as per the social compact of the government. Current detractors of said contract advocate that the minimum amount is set too low and should be increased to almost double its current amount, as they hope this will help eliminate much of the qualms and adversity much of the less affluent people face.

However, this form of argumentation seems to consider one side of the problem while dismissing the other. It makes an illusion to consider the adversity of the employee while completely ignoring the issues of the employer. An individual in our society would be best defined by their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, while interacting with these rights as rationally as possible. If rational thinking is including into the fray, it is evident to see why the argument of the detractors seem dogmatic at best. One would assume that a simple increase in wages would help propel the poorer class to a higher standard of living, but this level of thinking fails to include the plight of the employer as mentioned before. The reason they can hire so many employees in the first place is because of the minimum wage that is in place. An increase to this wage, to almost double it’s current amount, would cause a severe increase to labor costs that the employers would have to deal with. This would leave them with multiple dilemmas, including whether or not they should decrease the work hours of employees to retain the same amount of personnel, whether or not they should replace employees with more automated methods to cut labor costs etc. This would only cause harm to the group of people it is help, as not only their living conditions (the thing that they proposed to help in the first place) not change, but their jobs will be on the line and the jobs will be even harder to get for newer employees as the employers would have to consider level of skill of the applicants more stringently because of the increase in labor costs.

Therefore, if one does agree with premises set forth in the argument presented, it is very obvious that we should collectively work toward keeping the minimum wage as it is but try to encourage fluidity between jobs and advocate for an individual’s rationality when it comes to allocating monetary resources.  

Comments Off on Minimum Wage

Filed under Locke

Tagged as

by | · 3:42 am

On Free Speech in the Private Sphere

Any well-organized government faces two conflicting ideas, first, that the government must protect the life, liberty, and property of their citizens. The magistrate threatens violence to ensure these rights, and in a just society stealing another man’s possessions, or enslaving him, will in turn lead to violence and imprisonment from the state. Second, the government may not intervene in the business of the private sphere, insofar as the actions of that sphere do not infringe upon those who are not party to it. That is to say that a church may practice baptism, Eucharist, speaking in tongues, etc., but may not practice cannibalism as it poses a danger to the public. A private sphere may choose to excommunicate any member it so wishes, with no need to consult the government nor the public at large.

Additionally, in guaranteeing these rights, the government must not infringe on any other rights. Consider a hypothetical in which the government could ensure the elimination of crime by assigning a police officer to a watch over each citizen day and night – ensuring no laws are broken. In doing so, the magistrate secures life and property by thwarting murder and theft, yet violates the right to liberty by intruding on privacy. Thus, the two roles of the magistrate often conflict. Safeguarding the rights of individuals as well as the rights of the private sector does, in one case, lead to the dilemma of “deplatforming” in the private sphere.

Alex Jones, far-right conspiracy theorist, has frequently experienced this excommunication over the last decade. The most influential social media platforms, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify, have all banned Alex Jones and other far-right ideologues over the past few years. This is consistent with the rights of the private sphere: they are privately owned enterprises that may refuse service or deny a platform to anyone they wish. A problem arises in that when all available platforms ban a person, where then do they turn?

Consider a situation in which one restaurant refuses service to a customer because of their political beliefs – a refusal that is completely in their right. Yet if all restaurants in a given community refuse service to this political extremist, where then can they eat? Apply the same to grocery stores, buying and selling realty, going to school, etc. If we believe that the core function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property from one another, then the liberty of this political extremist is inhibited. In a similar manner, when every platform rejects Alex Jones, is his right to free speech not being infringed upon? His removal from the social media giants effectively removes him from his audience and his livelihood.

This is not to say Alex Jones is necessarily good, or even worthy of being on these platforms. Jones’ rhetoric is undoubtedly vile and frequently untrue, yet hateful free speech must be as equally protected as uncontroversial speech. In a time where most communication is digital, blocking access from online platforms is nearly equivalent to blocking one’s ability to be heard at all.

Thus, we reach the conflicting ideas we first mentioned: Alex Jones is guaranteed the right to free speech, and social media companies are guaranteed freedom to exclude who they wish. We must somehow solve this impasse, and the least damaging option is to restore Jones to these platforms. If we believe that a government’s first obligation under the social contract is to its citizens, then although governments are also obligated to preserve the sanctity of private spheres, those spheres must sometimes be infringed upon for the better of the people, such as in the hypothetical of the cannibalistic church. Similarly, these platforms present a public danger by removing certain voices and ideas (however untrue or hateful) that impedes on peoples right to participate in a civil society. As such, the only choice a fair government can make is to ensure equal freedom of speech on influential platforms.

Comments Off on On Free Speech in the Private Sphere

Filed under Locke

Tagged as , ,

by | September 15, 2020 · 5:40 pm

“Defunding” the Police

My words here today are to delve into the matters of our society’s law enforcement. That the people have seen the civil unrest that has been created by this institution sought to protect us. That the government has harbored a system where unethical people can be employed into a position of power with ease. A position of power that has the jurisdiction to threaten life and justify that it comes with the job. I am here to address where the problem lay and the discourse that must be taken to reform this imperfection in civil society. It is in the interest of the public good to do so because natural law is being exploited and natural rights are being threatened. First and foremost, the phrase “defund the police,” seems aggressive and divisive to our exigency. The phrase sparks controversy and disrupts progress. We are rather looking towards reformation in order to keep faith in civil society. We are addressing this issue, not because of political agenda or gain, but because the state of nature obliges, “being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

The problem that lays over this institution stems from my concept of paternal power in chapter six of the Second Treatise of Government. Children are born lacking reason, and it is the parent’s job to govern the actions of “their yet ignorant nonage” until they do so. Fundamentally education is also a crucial aspect of cognitive development- to further instill reason and understanding. It begs my main question and argument, “why are people required to further their education after college into law school in order to practice the law, but we require no such extensivity into this prerequisite in order to enforce the law?”

As a society, we have allowed young adults with minimal formal education into a position of power in civil society. We are relying on the faith that these people’s parents governed their offspring in a susceptible way of reason. However, we have had some unethical people slip through the cracks and into power. Our system has allowed misguided individuals to easily obtain the means to dictate natural law. But these subjects are not the only ones to blame. In laymen’s terms and popular culture “no such thing as a bad student, only bad teacher.”- The Karate Kid (1984) The right teachings can help civil society by creating more socially conscious people. More conscious and thorough education is the remedy for this problem. Maybe it is time that we make all levels of law enforcement require a college degree.

I believe in law enforcement as an institution because civil society can only function if it is governed by reason. However, I believe we have failed to create a system that has thoroughly employed people that can sufficiently and functionally protect with reason. Society needs not to look to defunding as the solution, but rather retooling the means. I believe as of recent, the city of Denver has been experimenting with a new application where they send mental health professionals and paramedics to some 911 calls instead of law enforcement (Denver Post). Remember, America is a nation like no other. It is a diverse melting pot that’s foundations are a culmination of my ideas and theories of what civil society ought to be. Keep in mind, it is a young country compared to the rest of civilization and is rather a social experiment to see if democracy can in fact endure. We cannot forget that the function of this government is for the people. We cannot lose sight of reason.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

by | September 14, 2020 · 9:40 pm

On Minimum Wage

Over time, the movement to increase the American minimum wage has grown in strength and popularity. Proponents of this movement argue that economic circumstances have evolved to permit such changes, as the total monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within the United States has grown steadily. During the same time period, the minimum wage, a concept conceived to protect the individual’s right to liberty by establishing a monetary floor for the value of his labor, when adjusted for inflation, has barely grown at all, leading to inadequate compensation unable to fulfill man’s livelihood. On the other hand, opponents of this movement argue that such increases in prosperity granted to laborers would force entities, be it a corporation, a government, or a community, to not employ anyone at all, as they would not be able to afford such wages, therefore hurting the economic welfare of individuals in the broader society.

The state of government that rules in the United States is a state that champions an individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To add to that, the state of democratic government is one that elects individuals to represent broad swaths of peoples in various geographies, separated by traditions, interests, and socioeconomic statuses. These elected individuals are deemed with the task of drafting legislation to determine the laws of civil society, in order to best represent the interests of the peoples who elected them. Coupled with the founding principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, these elected individuals would, foreseeably, do most well by guaranteeing such rights to the peoples of their particular geography. 

When the property, and in this case,  monetary compensation, being endowed to an individual as the reward of their labor does not, and conceivably cannot, meet his elementary economic needs, as if the individual has a total and immediate dependence on said compensation for their livelihood,  the individual cannot consent to such rule over the liberty every man is entitled to. Therefore, that individual is, for all intents and purposes, in a state of slavery under the entity enforcing his labor. Such enslavement is improper on a couple of dimensions. One would do well to ask oneself what the difference is between an absolute monarch, claiming to receive the right to rule from divine and hereditary origins, and an entity forcing an individual to toil away or face harm to his livelihood, claiming their practice remains legal as per the standards set forth by their government. 

All these premises having been clearly made out, it is that of the government’s responsibility to increase the minimum wage to a living wage, in which an individual’s right to liberty is guaranteed such that he may live and work without risk to his livelihood. If the government refuses to increase the minimum wage such as to continue subjecting laborers to conditions of slavery, against the common will of the people, then those peoples should seek self-determination in their pursuit of freedom, thereby opposing the will of their government and seeking to dissolve the existing government in favor of a new legislative, differing from the other, by the change of persons or form, or both, as they shall find it beneficial for their safety and livelihood. 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke, Uncategorized

Tagged as

by | · 2:14 am

Let the protests rage on: Discussing police brutality and Black Lives Matter

Life, liberty and property: easy words to say, but often difficult to comprehend and apply to the world we live in. The news I read every single day shocks me. It simply blows my mind how much we take for granted — resources, the society, the environment; but most of all, human life. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, I talk about the limits of human understanding — and how the mind can indeed grow and acquire more knowledge as we age. But there are certain things about this society and the way it functions that are so acutely set in stone by the people in power, that we dare not question them.

But what is living like for me and you, if others are also not able to live with the same freedom and safety? Recent cases of police brutality have shattered my faith in the system — if one even wants to call it a system. I strongly condemn the violence and trauma inflicted upon the African-American community in this country.

But condemning is not enough. Words are not always enough. 
Revolting against the government is justified if life, liberty and property are not protected. And in this case, even just the mere existence of African-Americans is threatened and disrespected. Above all, even beyond race, ethnicity or cultural background, we must not forget that they are also human beings, just like you and me. And to be human — with feelings, emotions, needs, constraints, struggles, in this battlefield of a world, is a complicated thing. But underneath it all, one truth that lies roaring and glaring into the face of this planet is that we are all equal.

More than anything else, each person has a duty to preserve their life — and never is one man’s duty more important than another’s. 

Equality and independence are the only foundation upon which a successful, thriving society can develop. Thus, let the Black Lives Matter rallies rage. Let the people speak up for they have been silenced for way too long. God has not made all people naturally subject to a monarch — God has made us to be equal. And it is this pursuit of equality that will bring us together. Let the protests rage on. This is the beauty and resilience of the Natural Law. 

At the end of the day, it was the government who broke the social contract by not punishing the police who violated basic human rights.

In this case, there is substantial evidence of the trauma from not just people who are African-American, but also from people who were not directly affected. The world has risen together because the pain has been felt by all. It is a wound that has gone too deep for the world to coexist with. And thus, the process of healing must begin. Healing begins with one thing: the truth. The truth that the system has failed those who were not seen as equal. And it is within this idea we must all introspect: why is it so easy for some to sacrifice an African-American’s life over somebody else’s? 


It is in the silence amidst these answers that we learn the sheer insensitivity of recent events.

And may we all introspect and learn to understand what this heavy silence means. 

Comments Off on Let the protests rage on: Discussing police brutality and Black Lives Matter

Filed under Locke

Tagged as ,

by | February 8, 2019 · 2:48 am

On Illegal Immigration

This Nation has oft been referred to as “The Great Melting-Pot,” which is to say, many Peoples have come here from every region of the Earth, representatives of every Culture, Religion, and Philosophy; and from the combination of their various Creeds was this Nation born. Likewise, it is said that America is a Land of Opportunity, where any human may seek the American Dream of Prosperity and Happiness; and in seeking this opportunity, many immigrants have contributed not only to their own wealth, but to the Economical and Cultural wealth of the Nation. Overlooking these many and varied contributions, some Members of our Society have begun to argue that there must be limits set upon immigration to this Country, as those drawn to Lady Liberty’s Beacon are not valid in their aims of resettlement. They say it is Illegal for a human to seek out new Government when his own has failed him. In this essay, I seek to quell my detractors and disprove their claims, which are at odds with the Natural Rights of Humankind.

A Commonwealth, or Country, may be defined as a community of people who have submit themselves to a common Civil Government in order to further advance their Civil Interests, which I take to be Life, Liberty, Health, Freedom from Suffering, and the procurement and retention of Personal Property. If a Commonwealth does not procure, preserve, and advance the Civil Interests of those who reside there, it is not truly a Commonwealth; those who reside there are justified in determining it to be less than a true Society, and seeking out a Commonwealth that allows for their Life, Liberty, Health, and Possessions to be advanced in status. As Civil Interests are inherent to every Human, so every Human has the right to seek them out.

My opponents will no doubt claim that immigrants fleeing illicit Commonwealths would do better to take a stand within their own countries and advocate for a better life. To this, I say that not every human has the mental and physical resolve to resist tyranny; do you expect Babes to take up arms, or nursing mothers? Instead, I should think it better if these people, endowed with wisdom from first-hand experience of Tyranny, would be better suited to mental labour in countries where their wisdom would form an invaluable buttress against those who would promote Absolute Monarchy and Despotism.

Another Argument I have heard against the Inherent Right to Civil Interests is that of Overcrowding. Those who seek to limit the Migration of others say that space is finite within this Nation, and further occupants will overburden us. To this I say: there is still much unoccupied land within this Commonwealth that lies undeveloped, and the Population Density of a Las Angeles or a New York should not be taken as indicative of the entire Nation. If a single Immigrant were to tend an acre of land, and produce food for ten people, then they have not diminished our Nation’s resources but added to them. As Labor is the basis of Personal Property, and what distinguishes it from Common Lands, it is far better to have more laborers than more land that lies Fallow and Unused. Our Administration would be Wise, then, to seek to place Immigrants in places where their labor may be of most use, allowing the fruits of said labor to benefit all.

Comments Off on On Illegal Immigration

Filed under Locke, Uncategorized

by | February 7, 2019 · 5:06 am

On Minimum Wage

There have been motions from some of the several states for an increase to minimum wage. It is argued, by advocates of the motion, that such a rise in wages will provide individuals the capacity to be financially independent. Although the pursuit is noble, the method for implementing such prosperity is flawed. The apparatus of minimum wage, in actuality, provides a harmful effect to those it is imposed upon, serving only threaten the rights of the individual.

When we consider natural law, it can be seen that man has been given by God the capacity for rational thought. As individuals capable of rational thought, men are the proprietors of their own person and the actions or labor of it. Natural reason would then predicate that these decisions are made for the purpose of self-preservation. Thus this state of nature, all of mankind are equal and independent, relying solely on themselves for preservation and the pursuit of life, liberty, and property, so long as he does not violate another’s right to those values.

When Man leaves the state of nature and agrees to the social compact of government, some of his powers are transferred to that of the government, whose purpose is the better protection of his rights, but that alone will not sustain him. He must still use his labor to acquire the necessities for self-preservation. Yet because men are rational animals, they are free to decide how their labor will be used, either by themselves or by another. This results in the appearance of contracts and employment, where men are able to alienate their labor to their employer and get an agreed monetary compensation in exchange. Since this compensation does not spoil and has been agreed by all men as having value, one is able to use this compensation to pursue his own values.

Minimum wage, it is argued, serves as a defensive measure for an individual to prevent them from being paid less than what would be considered “fair” for their labor. Yet this assumption insults a core component of what makes a man what he is: a rational being.

If an employer pays an insufficient compensation to the employee for his labor or what he need to survive, that employee may rationally decide to pursue a different job that could adequately support himself. In the same way, an employer can choose not to pay a certain wage for work he does not think is adequate for the agreed level of compensation. Through this reasoning, man is also free to return to the state of unemployment, no longer expending his labor for others, and instead use it for his own wellbeing.

Society is based on rational men voluntarily agreeing social contracts. The use of a minimum wage infringes upon the autonomy of individuals to form their own social contracts. It also extends beyond the founding principles of the greater social compact that is the commonwealth. If the government forces one party to allocate its property, to a certain degree, for the services of another, then it is no longer pursuing and enforcing common welfare but the welfare of some at the expense of others.

As the government has been created by the consent of the people to protect their rights to life, liberty, and property, for it to then force some people to provide a portion of their own property, in this case monetary, to someone they employ when the labor does not equate the government-demanded compensation is a dangerous overreach of the commonwealths purpose and a violation of the people’s rights to their property. The only proper course of action for the government is to dismantle the apparatus that is minimum wage and let men operate with autonomy with their rights reasonably secured.

Comments Off on On Minimum Wage

Filed under Locke

by | · 4:52 am

On the Legitimacy of the “Smart Wall”

In an attempt to compromise with President Trump and his incessant demand for a physical wall on the southwest border of the United States, democrats proposed a bolster to border surveillance using new technologies, thereby building a “smart wall” along the border in place of a material wall. These new technologies would consist of license plate readers (ALPRs); drones; and biometrics which includes facial and iris scans, voice prints, and DNA collection; these technologies would be used on peoples who are traveling, immigrating to the United States, and peoples living on either side of the border. All of which begs of the question, which is the “smart wall” constitutionally liberal?

First, we must examine the targets of the “smart wall.” The power of the government is only legitimate when exercised on people who, through rational choice, consent to being governed. The governed and the government enter into a compact–the government protects the life, liberty, and property of the governed whilst the governed relinquishes some of their inherent human rights in exchange. Because humans are naturally free, equal, and independent beings, they must consensually submit to the privileges of governed society. The protections afforded by the U.S. government are reserved for the body politic, for its subjects, and not for peoples who are traveling through, are non-citizens, nor for people who do not inhabit that country AND are not within its borders; these peoples have not entered into a compact with the US government and are not subjects of it. Rather, they are subjects of some other government. While they may oblige themselves to the laws of the US government while traveling, they are not subjects of it. 

Secondly, the means of the “smart wall” involve invasion of certain liberties. Surveillance is an exercise of governmental power over its peoples. ALPRs and drones collect data of location and takes unsolicited photos of peoples and their property, invading their privacy and potentially the right to not self-incriminate via non-consensual photos. The collection of personal data such as facial scans and DNA collection is analogous to seizure of property, it is seizure of bodily property. Peoples, being rational and free beings, have bodily autonomy; they have ownership of their body—it is their property. Collecting biological data from non-consenting peoples is an infringement on their liberty. However, if the peoples are subjects of the government, it may be reasoned that, under certain circumstances, by entering into contract with the government, they have shed a certain degree of that liberty. But, considering the targets of the “smart wall” are not subjects of the power of the United States, collection of this data would be infringing on their rights, and an overextension of the powers of the United States. 

Lastly, power which the government does not have the right to, which peoples did not consent to, is arbitrary, moves beyond the law, or is used to harass and impoverish peoples, is tyranny. The United States seizing bodily property and infringing on privacy rights of non-subjects is tyrannical. The means of surveillance adopted by the “smart wall” necessitate consent from the surveilled, they must have submitted to governmental power by entering into a compact with that government. The power of the United States would be extending itself beyond its borders. Peoples who are traveling through or are not US citizens would be victims of tyranny at the hands of the “smart wall” and have the right to resist or demand retribution. However, a physical wall would not be invading on their rights as free peoples or as subjects of another government. The physical barrier would not be exerting non-consensual power, collecting property, invading freedom of conscience, or otherwise infringing on the liberties on non-citizens. 

Comments Off on On the Legitimacy of the “Smart Wall”

Filed under Locke

by | · 3:59 am

On Forgoing Vaccinations

Toleration of those who don’t conform is simple. Just as someone cannot force another into joining a religion they do not practice, someone can also not be forced into something that would only affect that individual privately. Vaccinations are proven to be a beneficial ward of potentially deadly diseases, but it’s not something that can be forced onto someone.

The Commonwealth is a structure built so that individuals may focus on preserving and advancing their own Civil Interests, such as life, liberty, health, and property. Becoming vaccinated surely helps preserve the civil interest of health for an individual, but it is still up to that individual to choose whether or not they want to preserve that civil interest in that way. The Commonwealth is structured for providing an environment where people can have access to ways of advancing their own health. However, just because that easier access is provided doesn’t mean that it has to be accepted. An individual is allowed to refuse something, even though it might benefit them, based on that individual’s own beliefs. This refusal should be tolerated to the extent in which the consequences of that action only affect that individual, as the refusal at that point won’t be affecting the civil interests or rights of anyone else.

Vaccinations, however, don’t just benefit the individual, but prevent diseases from being spread that could possibly affect the liberties of others. A disease that someone carries because they are unvaccinated can place others in harm’s way, even take away their lives. Because of this, a private matter such as choosing not to be vaccinated can start to have some consequences in the public sphere. I pose it is up to the structure of the Commonwealth to create a way to tolerate such individuals, or rather, prevent their private matters from becoming public issues, for both the sakes of those who choose to remain unvaccinated as well as those who might be affected by them. The easiest way to do this is to have being vaccinated as a requirement for participation in and access to the services of the Commonwealth, such as schools, workplaces, and recreational facilities, since something as simple as exposure to an unvaccinated person can create a public issue. Complications also arise when trying to restrict access to certain places that cannot easily be restricted, such as a public park. At that point, the Commonwealth could restructure to protect those who choose to go unvaccinated, but there is still responsibility that lies with that individual too. Say that individual chooses to ignore these restrictions placed by the Commonwealth and creates a public issue that affects the rights of someone else. Then that individual is liable to face the consequences for affecting those rights, whether they be from that others or from society itself. Really, this is a dangerous and cautious life to lead, but it is still their prerogative to do so.

Comments Off on On Forgoing Vaccinations

Filed under Locke

by | February 6, 2019 · 5:57 pm

On the Border of Civilization

I have heard it said that a border wall wouldn’t serve the populus well in protecting them. I have heard it said that this wall is, infact, paranoid infatuation with protection. They argue, God has declared the earth, for all the peoples of the world, their mutual property for the collective’s survival and benefit.

This, while based in truth, is obscuring the greater issue. Without this barrier, where are the protections for my property from those who mean to cross borders illegally, and who might also then cross the borders of civilization and steal from me? Individual property must be protected. The default earth is one of freedom. Each man may lay claim to a section of the earth by sewing the fields or taming the forests (or paying rent) freely. However, as the americas have already been claimed, letting foreigners in unannounced, unrestricted, and undocumented risks the property of lawful, consenting citizens. People entering this state without the state’s knowledge cannot be shown to consent to the laws and practices of this state. How are we, as citizens, expected to allow those who may not act in accordance to civil society, as we do, into our borders? Better to circumvent this misfortune and construct a border wall. This would allow each petitioner of entry to lawfully gain access to our nation, mutually benefiting both parties. Those who seek entry gain the protections of our state, honestly, fully, and with the state’s consent in this matter. The state gains knowledge of those who compose its citizenry and, consequently, will gain the ability to police the foreigners should they disobey the order of law.

A response to this argument: In constructing a border wall, inherently the desire to exclude some persons from your society is present. However, by wishing to enter the state’s border, it is safe to assume they wish to be apart of (consent to being apart of) our society. Who are we to say this corner of God’s earth isn’t for those who we turn away?

A man owns his labor and the fruits thereof – the property he has built upon himself. A group of men each own their respective properties. But, who owns the town within which the men reside? The citizens of the town. In the same fashion that we each individually own our properties, we also collectively own the town, and, by extension, the governmental structure the town is founded upon. Men worked to create this great nation, investing their good, intellectual labor. We, the people, propped these individuals up and gave them the seats of power upon which we built this nation. This section of earth is ours, the citizens, by right of collective property. Through reason, we are allowed to choose the practices that, in total, will most benefit us and our property. A murderous citizen may still wish to consent to the state we live in so that he may gain the benefits of citizenry. But, us as a society have decided that he is no longer consenting – or able to consent for that matter. His rights have been removed. If someone similar wishes to enter our nation, we as a people can reject their claim to entry, protecting us, our labor, and our society.

Comments Off on On the Border of Civilization

Filed under Locke, Uncategorized