----------------- 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]