government theory

Chapter 28 On the State of War

16.A state of war refers to a state of hostility and destruction.Whenever, therefore, he expresses by word or deed a serious and definite intent upon another's life, which does not spring from the whim of a moment, he puts himself at war with the person to whom he declares such an intent.In such a case, he puts his life under the power of that person, or of all those who help and support his struggle, at the risk of losing it at any moment.I have a legitimate and just right to destroy that which threatens me.The reason is based on fundamental natural law.People should try their best to protect themselves, and if they cannot protect all, they should first protect the safety of innocent people.A man has the right to destroy anyone who declares war on him or has hostility towards his life.The reason he can do it is like the reason he can kill a jackal or a lion.Because such a man is not bound by the accepted laws of reason, and has no other laws than those of force and violence, he may be regarded as a beast of prey, as a dangerous and harmful animal, who, once he falls into the clutches of his minions, Within, it will definitely be destroyed.

17.Therefore, whoever intends to bring another person under his absolute power is at war with that person, and we may understand this as an attempt at that person's life.The reason is that I have reason to conclude that the man who puts me under his power without my consent, after he has succeeded, can do with me as he pleases, and even destroy me at will.For no one can hope to place me under his absolute power.There is only one exception, and that is to compel me to give up my freedom by force, that is, to make me a slave.Because freedom from this powerful suppression is the only guarantee of survival.And reason prompts me to regard him who would deprive me of my liberty as an enemy to my existence, so whoever seeks to enslave me puts himself in a state of war with me.As liberty is the foundation of all the rest, whoever in the state of nature would deprive anyone in that state of liberty must be supposed to contemplate depriving everything else.Likewise, whoever in a state of society wants to take away the liberty of the people of that society or country must also be supposed to be trying to take away everything else from them, and will be regarded as being in a state of war.

18.This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, though the thief has done no harm to him, and has expressed no intention of his life, but has only held him by force, in order to take his money or money. what he likes.For whatever his excuses, the thief has no right to use force to bring me under his power.I have no reason, therefore, to think that he who would take my liberty from me, having brought me under his control, would not take everything else from me.So I can legally treat him as someone I am at war with.That is to say, if I have the ability, I can kill him. Whoever creates a state of war and is an aggressor is in such a dangerous situation.

19.Although some confuse them, it is clear that this is the difference between a state of nature and a state of war.The difference between them is as clear as the difference between states of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and security, and states of enmity, malice, violence, and mutual killing.They are in the natural state, people live together under the control of reason, and no one can have absolute authority over everything.But the use of force, or the demonstration of an attempt to use force, against the person of another, without an authority to deal with the dispute, is a state of war.And precisely because there is nothing to tell, it entitles a man to declare war on an aggressor, whether he is a member of society or a fellow countryman.So, though I cannot harm a thief because he has stolen all my property, I can go to court, but I can kill him when he sets out to rob me of my horse or my clothes.The reason is that the laws made for my defense cannot intervene against the force of the day to secure my life, which, once lost, cannot be compensated, and I have a right to self-defense and a right to war, that is, to kill The liberty of the violator, because the violator does not allow me time to appeal to the judge or the law to ultimately avoid an irreparable harm.The absence of authoritative referees keeps people in a state of nature.But imposing force on others not based on rights, whether there is a co-judge or not, creates a state of war.

20.But as soon as the use of force ceases, the state of war among the people in society ceases, and both parties are equally judged by the law.Measures to address past harms and prevent future harms were then sought.But a state of war, once begun, will continue, as in the state of nature, if there are no written statutes and authoritative judges to whom they may appeal.The innocent party has the right to destroy the other whenever possible, until the aggressor proposes peace and is willing to settle.Their terms must compensate for all the damage they have caused and guarantee the future safety of the innocent party.Besides, even if there were recourse to the law and a certain judge, the judgment of the law was denied because of flagrant perversion and far-fetched perversion of the law, so it could not be used to protect or compensate some people or Atrocities or damage done by one group, it is difficult to conceive of anything other than a state of war.As long as violence is used and injury is done, even by the hand of a law enforcer, whatever the name, pretext, or form of the law, it is still violence and injury.The purpose of the law is to protect and relieve the innocent by ensuring that all persons subject to the law apply the law fairly.If this is not done in good faith and in truth, then there will be wars imposed on the victims who cannot appeal to men for redress.In this case, there is only one solution, and that is to appeal to heaven.

twenty one.In this state of war there is no recourse but appeal to Heaven, and since there is no authority to adjudicate between disputants, every little dispute ends in this way.Avoiding this state of war is an important purpose for human beings to form society and break away from the state of nature.For if there were an authority or power on earth to which remedies could be appealed, the state of war would not continue, and disputes would be decided by that power.Had there been any such court or any superior judge in the world to decide the rights between Jephthah and the Ammonites, they would never have entered into a state of war.So we see him being forced to resort to heaven.He said: "May the Lord, the judge, judge right and wrong today between the Israelites and the Ammonites." (From "Old Testament Judges" Chapter 21No. Please lead your army into battle.In this dispute, if someone raises the question of who is the referee, it does not mean that who should arbitrate this dispute.As we all know, Jephthah here wants to tell us that "the Lord who judges" should judge.If there is no judge in the world, we can only appeal to God in heaven.So that question cannot mean who should judge whether others have at all put themselves at war with me, and whether I have at all appealed to Heaven as Jephthah did.On this question only my own conscience can judge, for I am accountable to the Supreme Judge of all on the Last Judgment Day.

(End of this chapter)