----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
This was sent some time ago in response to one of the comments by Bogdan 
Rabanca, but got sent back because of a new e-mail.  I hope it is still 
relevant to that discussion. 
 
On Locke:  one has to be very careful with the Second Treatise. Locke\'s 
argument is that in the state of nature there is no true property rights 
because there are no rules that define what constitutes property, and no 
social mechanisms (because there is no society) to enforce them--i.e., the 
role of judges.  So everyone rationally recognizes that the 
\"inconveniences\" of the state nature means everyone should give up their 
natural rights and come into civil society, thereby securing the certainty 
to known and enforceable rules governing property--that is, of lives, 
liberties andestates.  Liberties here refers to the  rights to possession 
and disposal, that is, or market participation, not political liberties per 
se. 
 
Ultimately, Locke\'s civil society has the objective of securing property 
rights in a way that makes \"expected value\" stable, and thus provides a 
framework for rational calculation of likely future rates of return to 
utilitization of assets.  To see a very meaningful application of the 
Lockean perspective, see James Hurst, Law and Conditions of Freedom in 
Nineteenth America, especially chapter 1. 
 
Fred Carstensen 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]