political philosophers

[A18]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

[A18]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

Well, the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force.

[A18]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

Well, the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force.

Yes it does.

If someone breaks into my house and I kill them, the government was not the only thing with force.

The state is just an organized way for the people to use force.

[A18]

Well, government or no government, there are always enough other people who could gang up and take any right away from you. But a republican state with a series of checks and balances should separate power enough that it will protect rights rather than infringe upon them.

[A18]

What is "legal?" It is an abstract concept. All it is is people using force.

With a state, it is possible to have the right to defend your property. Without a state, you definitely have that right. That means having a state that doesn't honor the right to protect property is inferior, but having a state that does is equal.