----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Re: Fred Carstensen\'s statement on Locke: 
 
I recognize the interpretation of Locke that Carstensen gives; I think it 
is one that tries to assimilate Locke to a contemporary view of property as 
(basically) an economic category (where private property is seen in terms 
of expected value or exchange value); and I think it is incompatible with 
certain passage in Locke\'s second Treatise (and I think it is a misreading 
of Locke). 
 
In the state of nature, there are rules that define property rights and 
there are social mechanisms to enforce them ... but the laws of nature, 
known by reason, do have problems, and the social mechanism of enforcement 
(the person injured) does have problems too, as Locke states, sometimes 
vividly. 
 
So, as Carstensen sees, the state of nature does have inconveniences, which 
make civil society appealing.  But people leaving the state of nature do so 
in order to protect their natural rights, not to give them up:  the purpose 
of civil society is to protect our lives, liberties, and properties. 
 
(It was Hobbes who said that we give up our natural right, i .e., we give 
it over to the sovereign, who then will pass laws that define and secure 
whatever rights we have.  Carstensen has, I think, repeated Hobbes\'s 
argument and called it Locke\'s.) 
 
My statements above cry out for textual references, but my Locke is in my 
office.  References forthcoming. 
 
Peter G. Stillman 
Vassar College 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]