IN A STATE OF WAR - Part One

INTRO :

Original "The State of War" was written by John Locke in 1714, since then many have written articles on the topic of discussions of his writings. In 2003 we the Southern Brotherhood Militia published a "State of War" article revised in our own words in addition to his writings.

The Part One of this article is written by John Locked 1714, to show the mindset of the topic.

"The State of War" by John Locke

The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; therefore, declaring by word of action (threat), upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him; against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defense and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have the right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction. For, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved; the safety of the innocent is to be preferred. One may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion. Because such are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beast of prey. Those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased, when he had got me there and destroy me, when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, (make me a slave). To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation and reason bids me to look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom, which is the fence to it so that he who attempts to enslave me, thereby puts himself in a state of war with me. He that in the state of nature would take away the freedom that belongs to anyone in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else and so be looked upon as in a state of war. This makes it legal for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him nor declared any design upon his life any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power; as to take away his money or what he has, by using force, where he has no right to get me in his power. I have no reason to supposed that he would take away my liberty, would not, when he had the opportunity with me in his power. And therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself in a state of war with me; kill him if I can, for to that hazard does he justly exposed himself, whoever introduces a state of war and is aggressor to it.

And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which howeversome men have comfounded, are as far distant as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction are from one another. Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them is properly the state of nature. But force or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief is the state of war; and 'tis the want of such an appeal gives a man the right or war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief whom I cannot harm but by appeal to law for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, he sets on me to rob me or my possessions; because the law which was made for my preservation where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which if lost is capable of no reperation, permits me my own defense and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge not the decision of the law for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of nature: force without right upon a man's person makes a state of war, both where there is and is not a common judge. But when the actual force is over the state of war ceases between those that are in a society and are equally on both sides subjected to the fair determination of the law; because then there lies open the remedy of appeal for the past injury and to prevent future harm. But where no such appeal is as in the state of nature, for want of positive laws and judges with authority to appeal to, the state of war once begun, continues with a right to the innocent party to destroy the other whenever he can, until the aggressor offers peace desires reconciliation on such terms as may repair any atrocities he has already done; and to secure the innocent for the future; where an appeal to the law and constituted judges lies open, but the remedy is denied by a manifest of perverted justice and a barefaced existence of laws to protect or indemnify the violence or injuries of some men or group of men, there it is hard to imagine anything but a state of war. For whatever violence is used and done, though by hands appointed to administer justice, whatever representation, name, pretences or forms of law the end whereof being to protect and redress the innocent by an unbiased application of it, to all who are under it. Where ever that is not bona fide done; war is made upon sufferers who, having no appeal on earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in such cases an appeal to heaven. To avoid this state of war, wherein there is no appeal but unto heaven and wherein every the least difference is apt. to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders is one great reason of men’s putting themselves into society and quitting the state of nature. For where there is an authority, a power on earth from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded and the controversy is decided by that power. Had there been any such court any jurisdiction on earth, to determine the right between Jeptha and the Ammonites, they had never come to the state of war, but we see he was forced to appeal to heaven. The Lord the Judge (says he) be the Judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon, Judges 11:27, and then prosecuting and relying on his appeal, he leads out his army to battle and therefore in such controversies, where the question is put, who shall be the judge? It cannot be meant, who shall decide the controversy, everyone who knows what Jephtha here tells us that the Lord the Judge shall judge. Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in Heaven. That question then cannot mean, who shall judge? Whether another hath put himself in a state of war with me and whether I may as Jeptha did, appeal to Heaven in it? Of that I myself can only be the judge in my own conscience, as I will answer it at the great day, to the Supreme Judge of all men. – John Locke 1632-1714

~6~