The Pros And Cons Of The State Of Liberty, By John Locke

The Locke claims that the state of nature is a state of perfect liberty. People in the state of nature are completely free, equal and independent. They can entirely follow the guidance of their own wishes and maintain their possessions without asking others consent and obey any other command or authority, as long as they comply with the law of nature. However, Locke also points out the disadvantages of the state of nature that if it is so free, it will full of continual dangers as people's property are very unsafe and insecure in this state. Others may interfere and invade their property since there are no stringent observers of justice. As a result, people join in the society and willing to give up some natural liberty. They engage in a social …show more content…
His body and his hands are engaged in labor and work. The property belongs to him since his labor has made things separate from the common state of nature and thus it is his private property and exclude the common rights of others. The desire to preserve and protect their property is the major purpose of establishing a government and law-making.
The people entrust the government with the executive power to enforce the laws. The government is entrusted by the people and should be accountable to the people. The purpose of the government is to protect the people's freedom, lives and property. In order to prevent the people with the power of making law and executing abuse their authority to meet their private advantages, the legislative and executive power should be separated. Locke claims that people have right to remove tyrannical government. When legislators take away and destroy the property of the people under arbitrary power, people should against the will of tyranny. If government abuse the trust and grasp absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estate of the people, people have the right to rebel against the government and establish a new government to resume their original