The first law of nature is “to seek peace, and follow it” (1668 page 80). The reason Hobbes give for citing this as the first law of nature is “because the condition of man…is a condition of war of everyone against everyone” (1668 page 80). Following the definition of natural law, if one was not to seek peace and follow it, this action could possibly result in death. However, if for some reason peace could not be found, the second law of nature gives man the ability “by all means we can, to defend ourselves” (1668 page 80). This law is a law of nature that has become extremely debased in American …show more content…
“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule” (1689 page 17). Based on that definition, several countries would be at fault for neglecting to this natural liberty. However, the other definition that give justification to slavery, “the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive” (1689 page 17), and thus we see a direct contradiction with the earlier claim that all men are “equal and independent”. Equally interesting is the condition that the master (conqueror in Locke’s terms) be lawful. It is clear, to any educated person, that America interpreted “lawful conqueror” as a lawful only to regulations of the government and not lawful to the natural rights their slaves held. Slavery is one aspect of classical liberalism according to Locke that I do not agree with. Another principle that Locke classical liberalism is known for is his view on property. Locke has some very unique ideas about man and his