John Locked

This week's reading was interesting regarding Locke's themes and ideas that were developed in the first couple of chapters. He begins with a depiction of the state of nature, claiming that individuals are under no obligation to obey one another but are each themselves judge of what the law of nature requires. This train of thought is awkward to adhere by in relations to the US government and law. We as Americans follow a law system created by man and for man. These laws are intended to benefit mankind and the society in which the laws are instilled, however, only to be affective if enforced and followed. Locke's idea claiming that we have no obligation to obey one another is also claiming not to abide by the rules and laws created and established by man as well. Locke claims that the natural state of mankind is in fact anarchic, he believes that this state of being did indeed exist and does exist wherever there is no legitimate government. I guess he does have a point, if looking at third world countries that do not have a firm hand in government, the people are somewhat in a state of anarchy. For example, the government in Sudan is not the firmest of governments, some of the people, in their natural state are in fact anarchic by not obeying governments rules. Instead, a group of these people have created their own way of living by slaughtering children and raiding villages for their own benefit. This group is called the LRA (lords resistance army). Now Locke would account for this action that is taking place is Sudan, Africa to be the state of nature, whereas my argument is, how can the LRA be a depiction of the law of nature if the LRA's actions are not that of their own, but from a leader? Is that not obeying another individual? Or is the act of the individual the LRA members follow actions from a law of nature mind? While no individual in this state may tell another what to do or authoritatively pronounce justice in a given case, men are not free to do whatever they please. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it". The specifics of this law are unwritten, however, and so each is likely to misapply it in his own case. Lacking any commonly recognized, impartial judge, there is no way to correct these misapplications. Even were such a judge available, the just are vastly outnumbered by the unjust and indifferent,

...