ทวีตที่ปักหมุด
If you Brits don't want to put up with this outrage, what John Locke says in The Second Treatise of Government should be the starting point for your thought, Part One (1,689 words)
From Chapter II, “Of the State of Nature”
§4. To understand political power [aright], and derive it from its original [= source], we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature; without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction [= scope of authority] is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank [= degree of dignity], promiscuously [= indiscriminately] born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection….
§6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontrollable [= not subject to anyone’s command or rule] liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but [= except] where some nobler use than its bare [= mere] preservation calls for it.
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed [to exist] any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours.
Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station [= his divinely appointed existence] wilfully, 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 to an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
§7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others’ rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain, if there were nobody that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent, and restrain offenders.
And if anyone in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, everyone may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction [= authority] of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law everyone must needs have a right to do.
§8. And thus, in the state of nature, ‘‘one man comes by a power over another”; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power to use [= deal with] a criminal, when he has got him [the criminal] in his hands, according to the passionate heats or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression; which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that [which] we call punishment.
In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tie, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him: which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature; every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or, where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on anyone, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in this case, and upon this ground, ‘‘every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of [= have the authority to enact and enforce] the law of nature.’’
From Chapter III, “Of the State of War”
§ 16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate, settled design upon another man’s life, puts him [the aggressor] in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so [he, the aggressor,] has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him [the person under threat], or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction....
One may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [= made evident his intent against the other's life], for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason [= that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions] [because they] have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy [anyone] whenever [they fall] into their power.
§ 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 [= treat] me as he pleased when he got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it....
§ 18. This makes it lawful 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 [= to get him sufficiently into his power], [so] as [to be in a position] to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power..., I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard [= risk] does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.
§ 19. Men living together according to reason (cf. §§6, 16), without a common superior [= an established executive, legislative, and judicial apparatus in which a magistrate, the executive superior, has sole, universally recognized authority to use force to protect citizens’ or subjects’ property, rights, persons, and lives against enemies foreign and domestic] on earth, with authority to judge between them, is [what is] properly [understood to be] 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 it is the want [= lack] of such an appeal [that] gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in [an established] society [governed by law], and a fellow subject.
Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but [= except] by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but [= only] of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose [= intervene] to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me [for] my own defence...a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor 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.
English
