in trying to justify why man needs to form the social contract for the common good Locke basically defines a state of nature that represents a lawless, judgeless, warring condition. These are the chief principles he finds lacking in the state of nature: “There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them; there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law; there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution” (Locke 13). Locke seems to ignore this chaotic, lawless, adversarial nature of man’s original state when he contends there are many freedoms, liberties and privileges of the state of nature. In fact, he even admits that the state of nature leaves so much lacking that mankind is willing to rush into the social contract with other humans because of how precarious and dangerous is the natural state of man. Man may be free from control over others legally, but not physically, and his “enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others…the enjoyment of property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure…Thus, mankind…being but in an ill condition while they remain in it are quickly driven into society” (Locke 13).
...