Distributed Digital Property Board

[goin fishn]

Weby-I think Locke mixed Locke with Hobbes- and then I added a bit more in my choice of wording, which now that I think of it was more Hobbes than Locke.

In any case, I am referring to Locke's 2nd Treatise, the 3rd chapter, and the 9th chapter.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm


Sec. 17. 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 to be 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 too when he had a fancy to it;

-and-

Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.<end>


Families and tribes do develop naturally due to human nature. The reasons for governments are far more complex. While 18th century philosphers may have their limits today, some ideas are timeless. A government that takes away more of your personal freedom or enjoyment of your property than is absolutely necessary is a bad government. It's a danger to it's citizens. As someone who has worked in a social work system, I have seen firsthand what our government is like when it has nearly absolute power over a person's life. And it is not pretty. The problem is that the power of the government must be wielded by someone-and the realization of the good intentions of whatever laws created by our government rests ultimately in the hands of government officials. The good that a law does rests solely upon the diligence, intelligence, compassion, and judgement of those officials.

From what I have seen, I would like to limit their capacity to ever hold any power of judgement over me.