Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
This quote represents Locke’s response to the philosophy expressed by Thomas Hobbes that man in his natural state is engaged in a perpetual war against all. Locke’s logically reasoned alternative counters that if the natural state of man is self-preservation—which is the underlying premise of Hobbes assertion—will naturally be moved to universal preservation under non-threatening conditions as means of ensuring his own existence.
Should a robber break into my house, and with a dagger at my throat make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title, by his sword, has an unjust conqueror, who forces me into submission. The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown, or some petty villain.
In this quote is a microcosm of the essay writ large. Locke is arguing against historical precedent; namely, might makes right. He admits that conquest even under the most justifiable conditions endows the conqueror with right of power; the basis of his argument is that power is not synonymous with possession. This essay is, in effect, laying the foundation for Marx to later argue against the notion of private property on the basis that possession justifies exploitation.
...there is only one thing which gathers people into seditious commotions, and that is oppression.
Originally published anonymous, “A Letter Concerning Toleration” was directly addressing the issue of religious toleration by the Church, suggesting in strong terms that a national church of England should be one based upon toleration of conflicting viewpoints within. Toleration is based upon the rational assumption that comprehensive understanding is beyond human capacity and as such intolerance of opposing opinions is distinctly illogical. Such intolerance can only be characterized as oppression and the natural consequence of oppression is addressed in the above quote.
Wherever law ends, tyranny begins…
One of the more famous quotes attributable to Locke is a defining characteristic of his attack against absolutism. It is easy to understand why Locke’s political writings were found especially attractive by the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. Jefferson sometimes almost seems to be consulting Locke’s tracts on democratic ideals line by line while he was composing the various drafts of the Declaration of Independence.
…freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
One of the essential philosophical tenets of Locke’s political writings is the connection between law and liberty. While a common assumption is that laws are enacted to constrain and restrict personal liberty, Locke consistently presents an alternative perspective. Without laws binding social order together as a foundation of stability, anarchy would prohibit the self-restraint necessary to exercise of liberty on the basis of destabilizing the order which allows the exercise of liberty. If no laws existed to facilitate self-control, that foundation of stability inhibit such exercise; thus laws can be said to promote liberty rather than restrict them.
