John Locke's Latter Ofhandling

Here inheld are the first four headings of John Locke's Latter Offhandling of Redeship, twoth of two offhandlings.

''In this into Anglish, several words are  instead of "nature" and its , such as "natural". The word "nature" comes from the Latinish word for "birth", so in all befallings where, a shape of the root word "birth" is brooked, for , "inborn" for "natural". In many befallings, the brooking of these words becomes unseemly. In some of these, the feeling called forth by the brooking of "nature" is that of the "beginning" of the thing, a the thing has from its beginning for the sake of the kind of being it is.''

''Lastly, in one befalling, Locke brooks the name, "state of nature". In the same way, he also later brooks "law of nature" and "state of war". For this first, these two words together make for a hardship in coining an Anglish match. There has been much mooting over the seemly way to overset "state". In the befalling of the wordstring "state of nature", it is not so much an of the body of men and lawframed setups of the, but of the stead in which one stands, or the shape and suchness of a thing as it is now. By this sake, this onsetting brooks the word "stead" for "state" in this befalling.''

''As for "nature", in this befalling, the brooking of the words chosen thus far – namely, some shaping of "birth" or "beginning" seemed to miss the mark or to be besunder unwieldy together with "stead". To say that one is in a "birthstead" seems to mean that they are as a, and helpless. This is not the meaning of Locke's "state of nature", which is as said before, the shape and suchness of a thing as it is "in nature" or from its beginning until now with no  from a   or  of an  to frame a new shared redeship beyond the "law of nature".''

''By this sake, another word more streamlined and pithy than the unwieldy "beginning" is brooked, namely "ord". "Ord" comes from Old English and bears the meaning of the foremost point as of a spear, but also the beginning or the. Together, these words build the onsetting brooked herein: "ordstead". The same way of wordbuilding is then brooked for "law of nature" and "state of war", which are onset, "ordlaw" and "warstead", .''

Foreword to the two
Reader, you have here the beginning and the end of a  about. It isn't worthwhile to go into what happened to the that should have come in between (they were more than half the work).

''The missing, that were to have been in the Latter , that is the next bit of the  , were  lost. They a lengthy onslaught on Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha [Highfatherdom], an  of the godly right of kings,  in 1680 (Filmer had died in 1653). The lost seemingly overlapped the onslaught on the same mark that filled Locke's First  of  and also take up a good deal of room in the Latter.''

These, I hope, are enough to  the seat of our great , our  King William, to  his  to the seat on the grounds of the leave of the folk, which is the only lawful grounds for , and which he holds more fully and sharply than any other  in the Christfollowing world; and to  to the world the folk of England, whose love of their fair and inborn rights, and their will to keep them, spared this  when it was on the brink of  and downfall under King James II.

If these are as  as I flatter myself that they are, the missing  will be no great loss, and my reader can be fulfilled without them. I truly hope so, as I don't foresee having either the time or the yearning to again, filling up the gap in my answer by again following Sir Robert Filmer through all the windings and  of his amazing layout.

The king and the as a whole have since so thoroughly  his  that I don't think anyone ever again will be bold enough to speak up against our shared, and be a spokesman for , or weak enough to be misled by nonsense clothed in handsome speech. If you to tackle the bits of Sir Robert's  that are not dealt with here, stripping off the blossom of  sayings and trying to turn his words into straightforward,, understandable , and if you then aliken these  with one another, you will soon be fulfilled that there was never so much glib nonsense put together in keen-sounding English.

If you don't think it worthwhile to look through all his work, only try the bit where he overthrowing, and see whether all your skill is enough to make Sir Robert understandable and  with himself and with. I wouldn't speak so flatly of an who is no longer in a  to answer, if it weren't that in  years preachers have been  his teaching and making it the   of our times...

I wouldn't have written against Sir Robert, working to show his mistakes,, and lack of the witness that he boasts of having as his only , if there weren't men among us who, by  his books and  his teaching, unburden me of the  of writing only against a dead foe.

They have been so earnest about this that if I have done him any wrong, I can't hope they will show me any. I wish that where they have done wrong to the truth and to the folk, they would be as ready to right it as I am to acknowledge mistakes witnessed against me, and that they would give weight to the thought that the greatest harm one can do to the king and the folk is to spread wrong thoughts about.

If they did, it might forever put an end to our having grounds to of thunderings from the ! If anyone who is truly careful about truth tries to my, I  him either to acknowledge any mistake he fairly  me of or to answer his struggles. But he must two things: that picking holes in my  -  or that little happening - is not the same as answering my book; that I shan't let a scolding stand for a.

1
1. In my First of, I showed these four things: All these having, as I think, been sharply, no  now on earth can  the slightest shadow of right from the   of all of mankind's , Adam's own lordship and fatherly.
 * 1) That Adam did not have, whether by inborn right as a father or through an  gift from God, any such right over his children or over the world as has been called out.
 * 2) That even if he had, his  would not have the same right.
 * 3) That if the right were to be  to his, it would be unsettled who were his , as there is no  or  law of God that settles this asking in every  ; so it wouldn't be settled who  the right and thus was named to.
 * 4) Even if all that had been  settled, it would be  in : the knowledge of the line of  running back to Adam has been utterly lost, so that nobody in all the  of mankind and families of the world would have the slightest  to have that  right of.

So if you don't want to give grounds to think that all in the world is the  only of might and, and men live together only by the same guidelines as the lower , where strength settles every bickering, and so lay a  for everlasting strife and harm, , uproar and uprising (things that the followers of that might and   so loudly cry out against), you will have to find another  of the beginnings of , another  for , and another way of settling who the folk are who ought to have it - other, that is, than what Sir Robert Filmer has taught us.

Locke uses ''the word "positive" in one and again in 13 and elsewhere. "Positive" is a word. A "positive" law is one that some lawmaker ; it comes from the choosing of some lawmaking. The is with an, which isn't laid down by anyone but  arises out of the  of things. So a "positive" gift from God would be a gift as  understood; Locke throws in "positive", seemingly as even an inborn right that Adam had would in a way be a gift from God, as God gave Adam his ; but it wouldn't be a "positive" gift, arising from an  gift-giving deed on God's behalf. Likewise with the thought on a "positive" law of God's.''

In this oversetting into Anglish, "forthput" is brooked for this kind of "positive", as "to posit" means "to put forth."

2. For this goal, I think it may be worthwhile to say what I think is; so that the sway of a   over an  can be  from that of a father over his children, a  over his, a  over his wife, and a lord over his. As it sometimes happens that one man has all these sways, we can get sharper about how the sways  by looking at the   in which the man stands: as a  of a, father of a family, and  of an.

3. So: I take to be a right to make laws - with the death  and  all lesser  - for  and upholding ownership, and to hire the strength of the  in  such laws and  the  from outside onslaught; all this being only for the shared good.

2: The
4. To understand rightly and bring it forth from its true wellspring, we must  what stead all men are born in. In this stead men are flawlessly free to, and their belongings and themselves, in any way they like, without asking anyone's leave - under only the bounds set by the.

It is also a stead of sameness, in which no one has more sway and right than anyone else; as it is straightforward that makings of the same kind and stead, all born to the same  of  and to the  of the same skills, should also be the same in other ways, with no one being  or  anyone else unless God, the lord and  of them all, were to  sharply and  his wish that some one man be raised above the others and given an  right to.

5. The wise Richard Hooker sees this inborn sameness of men as so straightforward and that he  on it men's  to love one another, on which he builds their  toward each other, from which in turn he brings forth the great  of rightfulness and goodwill. Here are his words:


 * An alike inborn has led men to  that they have as much  to love others as to love themselves. Things that are the same must be meted by one standard; so if I  want to get some good - indeed as much good from every man as any man can want for himself - how could I foresee having any bit of my wants that other men, being all of the same birth, are bound to have?

To offer them anything with their want will be to burden them as much as it would burden me; so that if I do harm I must foresee, as there is no grounds why others should show more love to me than I have shown to them. Thus, my want to be loved as much as by my  peers gives me an inborn  to do unto them with the same love. Everyone knows the guidelines and standards inborn has laid down for the guidance of our lives on the grounds of this  of sameness between ourselves and those who are like us.

6. But though this is a stead of freedom, it isn't a stead of leave in which there are no bounds on how men behave. A man in that stead is wholly free to himself or his belongings, but he isn't free to unmake himself, or even to unmake any made thing in his ownership unless something more  than its mere  is at stake. The is  by a law that makes bonds for everyone. And, which is that law, teaches anyone who to  it, that as we are all the same and selfstanding, no one ought to harm anyone else in his life, health, freedom, or belongings. This is as: Everyone is bound to uphold himself and not to life willfully, so on the same grounds everyone ought, when his own  isn't at stake, to do as much as he can to uphold the rest of mankind; and other than when it's an  of  a lawbreaker, no one may take away or  anything that  to the upholding of someone else's life, freedom, health, limb, or goods.
 * we are all the work of one almighty and unboundedly wise maker;
 * we are all the of one overall, sent into the world by his leave to do his work;
 * we are all the belongings of him who made us, and he made us to last as long as he chooses, and not as long as we choose;
 * we have the same skills, and share in one, so there can't be any that would  some of us to unmake others, as if we were made to be  by one another, as the lower kinds of makings are made to be  by us.

7. So that all men may be held back from the rights of others and from harming one another, and so that the  that aims at the  and  of all mankind may be heeded, the  of that  (in the ) is in every man's hands, so that everyone has a right to  lawbreakers as harshly as is needed to hinder the breaking of the law. For the, like every law over men in this world, would be worthless if no one had sway to it and thereby  the  and fetter. And in the if anyone may  someone for something bad that he has done, then everyone may do so...

8. That is how in a one man comes to have a lawful sway over another. It isn't an sway,  him to use a   by the hot madness or unbridled utmost of his own will; but only a sway to  him so far as   and  say is  to his, namely as much  as may  for  and  - those two are the only grounds for one man to lawfully harm another, which is what we call.

By breaking the, the  himself to live by some  other than that of  and shared fairness (which is the standard that God has set for the deeds of men, for their  ); and so he becomes a threat to mankind as he has  and broken the tie that is meant to spare them from harm and. This is a against the whole strain of mankind, and against  and  that the   for the.

Now, every man, by the right he has to mankind overall, may fetter and if  unmake things that are  to mankind; and so he can do to anyone who has  that law as much harm as may make him  having done it, and thereby hinder him - and by his  hinder others - from doing the same. So on these grounds every man has a right to the  and to.

9. No wonder this will seem a rather outlandish teaching to some folk, but before they it, I dare them to  what right any king or  has to put to death or otherwise  an  for a  he  in their homeland. The right is not grounded on their laws, through any leave they get from the  will of the ; for such  don't get through to an : they aren't  to him, and even if they were, he isn't bound to listen...

Those who have the utmost sway of making laws in England, France or Holland are to an Indian merely like the rest of the world, men without right. So if the didn't give every man a sway to   against it as he  deems the  to need, I don't see how the  of any  can  someone from another land; as they can't have any more sway over him than every man can by birth have over another.

10. As well as the that  in breaching the law and leaving from the right  of  -  through which man becomes so  that he  that he is forsaking the  of human birth and becoming  - there is often  through which someone does harm to someone else. In the latter, the man who has been harmed has, moreover the overall right of that he shares with everyone else, a  right to seek  from the man who harmed him; and anyone else who thinks this right may also meet with the  man and help him to  from the  such fees as may make fulfillment for the harm he has.

11. So there are two marked rights: (i) the right that everyone has to the  so as to bind him and forestall such  in the hereafter; (ii) the right that a  man has to get. Now, a sheriff, who by being sheriff has the shared right of put into his hands, can by his own right (i) withdraw the  of a  in a  where the shared good doesn't  that the law be ; but he can't (ii) withdraw the fulfillment owed to any  man for the  he has taken. The only one who can do that is the man who has been harmed.

The man has the sway of taking for himself the goods or work of the, by right of ; and everyone has a sway to  the  to forestall its being  again, by the right he has of  all mankind, and doing everything  that he can to that end.

And so it is that in the everyone has a sway to kill a murderer, both to frighten others from this  that no  can make up for, by the  of the  that everyone  for it, and also to  men from forthcoming  by this ; he has , the shared  and standard God has given to mankind, and by the wrong  and slaughter he has  on one man he has  war against all mankind, so that he can be unmade as though he were a lion or a tiger...

This is the grounds for the great, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Cain was so fully that everyone had a right to unmake such a lawbreaker that after murdering his brother he cried out "Anyone who finds me will slay me" - so sharply was this law written in the hearts of all mankind.

12. On the same grounds a man in the may  lesser breaches of the. 'By death?' you may ask. I answer that each may be  harshly enough to make it a bad deal for the lawbreaker, to give him grounds to, and to frighten others from lawbreaking in the same way. Every that can be  in the  may also be  in the  - and be  in the same way (as far a  as it would be in a ).

I don't want to go into the of the  or of its  guidelines, but I will say this much: it is  that there is an, which is as understandable and sharp to a  man who learns it as are the  laws of. See the of "" after  1.

It may be even sharper - as much sharper as is sharper -  to understand, than the flighty thoughts and    of men who have tried to find words that will further their clashing hidden stakes. For that is what has gone into the of most of the  laws of lands. Soothly, such laws are right only to the that they are  on the, which is the standard by which they should be  and.

13. To this outlandish teaching of mine, namely that in the everyone has the sway to  the, I foresee this  shall be raised:


 * It is for men to be  in their own, as self-love will  men to uphold themselves and their friends. And on the other side, ,  and  will lead them to  others too harshly. So nothing but befuddlement and  will follow, and that is why God has - as he  has -   to  the  and  of men.

I freely that   is the right  for the drawbacks of the. There must be great  in a stead where men may be  in their own ; someone who was so  as to do his brother a  will (we may well ) hardly be so right as to  himself for it! But I answer the as follows:

If the is unbearable because of the evils that are bound to follow from men's being  in their own, and  is to be the  for this, let us do an. On the one side, there is the, and on the other there is where one man - and  that  kings are only men! - leads a, is free to be the in his own , and can do what he likes to all his , with no one being  to  or  those who carry out his wishes, and everyone having to put up with whatever he does, whether he is led by , mistake, or.

How much better it is in the, where no man is bound to yield to the will of someone else, and someone who deems wrongly (whether or not it is in his own ) is answerable for that to the rest of mankind!

14. It is often asked, as though this were a mighty : 'Where are they - where ever were they - any men in such a ?' Here is an answer that may fulfill in the mean time: The world always did and always will have many men in the, because all kings and of   throughout the world are in that stead. I in this all who  , whether or not they are  others; for the  between men isn't ended only by their making a  with one another.

The only that ends the  is one in which men  together  to  into one  and make one ...

The and deals  in  between two men on an, ... or between a Swiss and an Indian in the woods of Americksland, are bindnig on them even though they are  in an   one another; for truth and -keeping belongs to men as men, not as  a  - that is, as an  of , not  law.

15. To those who that anyone was ever in the, I  the right of the wise Hooker, who writes:


 * The binds men, only as men, even if they have no settled fellowship, no   among themselves about what to do and what not to do. What  leads us to seek  and fellowship with other men is the truth that on our own we haven't the means to  ourselves with a  stock of things that we need for the kind of life our  wants, a life fit for the worth of man. It was to make up for those flaws and  of the lonely life that men first  themselves in . (The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity [The Laws of Lordsgatheringish Borroughs], book 1,  10)

And I also that all men are  the, and stay so until they  to make themselves  some. I making this all truly sharp in later bits of this.

Heading 3: The
16. The is a shape of  and unmaking. So when someone by word or deed - not in a sudden outburst of wrath, but as an  of calm settled  - that he means to end another man's life, he puts himself into a warstead against the other man; and he thereby  to the risk of falling to the might of the other man or anyone that links with him in his  and takes up his.

For it is and right that I should have a right to unmake anything that threatens me with unmaking, as the   says that men are to be  as much as, and then when not everyone can be  the  of the  is to be.

In line with this, I may unmake a man who makes war on me or has shown himself as a foe to my life, that I may kill a wolf or a lion; as such men are not under the ties of the  law of, have no guideline but that of  and , and so may be  as  - threatening makings that will wisly unmake me if I fall.

17. So it comes about that someone who tries to get another man thereby puts himself into a  with the other, for such an   to a  of a  against the life of the other man. If someone wants to get me without my, I have grounds to  that would  me as he liked when he had got me there, and would unmake me if he wanted to;

For no-one can want to have me unless it's to  me by  to something that is against the right of my freedom, that is to make me a. To be of my own  I must be free from such ; and  tells me to look on him - the man who wants me  - as a foe to my, wanting to take away the freedom that is the  to it.

So someone who tries to me thereby puts himself into a  with me. Someone wants to take away the freedom of someone else must be to have a plot to take away everything else from the man, as freedom is the  of all the rest; and that holds in a  as well as in the.

18. This makes it lawful for me to kill a thief who hasn't done me any harm or any plot against my life, other than using  to get me  so as to take away my  or whatever else he wants. he says he is up to, he is using without right, to get me ; so I have no grounds to think that he won't, when he has me, take everything else away from me as well as my freedom. So it is lawful for me to him as someone who has put himself into a  with me, that is to kill him if I can; for that is the risk he ran when he began a war in which he is the.

19. This is the  between the  and the. Some men - namely Hobbes - have them as the same; but in truth they are as far from one another as a  of, goodwill,  and  is far from a stead of , , , and. An, rightly understood, :


 * men living together by wisdom, with no-one on earth who stands above them both and has the right to deem between them.

Whereas in a


 * a man or  his will to use strength against another man, with no one on earth whom the other can  for.

It is the lack of such a that gives a man the right of war against a, not only in an  but even if they are both  in one. If a thief has already stolen all that I am worth and is not an ongoing threat to me, I may not harm him but through a the law. But if he is now setting on me to rob me - even if it's only my horse or my coat that he is after - I may kill him.

There is the law, which was made for my, but there is no time for it to come between to spare me from losing my goods and maybe losing my life (and if I lose that there is no ). Furthermore, it is the thief's that there is no time for  the  that stands over him and me - namely, the law - and so I am  to make my own, and to be at war with the thief and to kill him if I can.

What puts men into an is the lack of a shared  who has the right; the  of unlawful strength against a man's body makes a, whether or not there is a shared  and (therefore) whether or not they are in an.

20. But for men who are in a fellowship under a, the ends when the  ends; and then those on each side of the  should evenly yield to the fair  of the law... But in the , where there are no  laws or  with  to , once a  has begun it goes on - with the  having a right to unmake the other if he can - until the  offers , and seeks  on  that will make up for any wrongs he has done and will give the   from then on. What if it happens like this?


 * There is time and opening for a the law, and to lawfully framed, but the  is not   an   of , a barefaced twisting of the laws so that they  or even  the  or   by some men or some band of men.

In such a it is hard to think we have anything but a. For wherever is  and  done, even if it is done by men  to   and is clothed in the name,, or shapes of law, it is still  and.

The goal of the law is to and get  for the, by an   of all who come under it; and when this is not  done, war is made upon the , and they - having nowhere on earth to  for  - are left to the only  in such , a  heaven.

21. In an where there is no  to  between, and the only  is to heaven, every little  is fit to end up in war; and that is one great grounds for men to put themselves into , and leave the. For where there is a, a on earth from which help can be had by , the  is settled by that might and the  is blocked. The rest of this cleaving, in the light of this, a in the Old , Judges xi.

4:
22. The inborn freedom of man is


 * to be free from any higher strength on earth, and not to be under the will or of men but to be  only by the.

The freedom of man in is


 * to be under no but the one  by leave in the ; and not under the sway of any will or under  from any law but what is  by the   with its.

Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us (Observations on Hobbes, Milton, etc.,, [Onlookings of Hobbes, Milton, and the others], leaf 55), namely a freedom for everyone to do what he wants, live as he likes, and not be tied by any laws. Rather, freedom is one of two things.

Freedom of birth is being under no fetter but the. Freedom of men under is having a standing  to live by, shared by everyone in the, and made by the lawmaking sway that has been set up in it; a freedom to follow one's own will in anything that isn't forbidden by the , and not to be under the , , unknown,  of another man.

''Here and elsewhere, Locke uses "arbitrary" not in the feeling of something like "chosen for no " or "chosen on a whim" or the like; but rather in a broader feeling,  in his day, as meaning only "chosen" or "hanging upon someone's choice". In that older and weaker feeling of the word, the fear of being under someone's "arbitrary" will is only a fear of being at the whatever he chooses to do to you, whether or not his choice is "arbitrary" in the  feeling.''

''In this oversetting into Anglish, "willy-nilly" is brooked for this kind of "arbitrary", which comes from the, "will ye, nill ye", meaning, "be ye willing, be ye unwilling". It shares the feeling of whimsy of "arbitrary" but could also be understood to mean "hanging upon someone's choice", or more spot-on, "whether you like it or not".''

23. ''In this Locke writes that a man doesn't have the sway to take his own life. He seemingly means that man may not rightly take his own life as the  says that men are to be  as much as  (cleaving 16). He goes on:''

This freedom from , is so  to a man's , so tightly tied to it, that losing it  losing all  over his own life. That's why no-one can enter into. A man doesn't have the sway to take his own life, so he can't willingly himself to anyone, or put himself under the overall, willy-nilly  of someone else to take away his life whenever he likes.

Nobody can give more sway than he has; so someone who cannot take away his own life cannot give someone else such a over it. If someone does a deed that death, he has by his own   his own life; the man to whom he has  it may (when he has him )  taking it and instead make use of the  man for his own ; and this isn't doing him any wrong, as whenever he finds the hardship of his  to outweigh the worth of his life, he has the sway to  his, thus bringing him the death that he wants.

24. What I have been is the  of , which is a right  of the  between a lawful  and a. If they enter into any kind of -  to   on the one side and  on the other - the  and  ends for as long as the  is. For, as I have said, no man can by a hand over to someone else something that he doesn't himself have, namely a  over his own life.

I acknowledge that we find among the Jews, as well as other, where men sold themselves, but sharply they sold themselves only into drudgery, not. It is that the man who was sold wasn't thereby put at the  of an, willy-nilly  ; for the  was bound at a  time to let the other go free from his , and so he couldn't at any time have the  to kill him.

Indeed, the lord of this kind of was so far from having a willy-nilly  over his life that he couldn't even choose to  him: the loss of an eye or a tooth set him free (Exodus xxi).

Wordlist
The words in the following spreadsheet are newly built for this leaf writ. They are herein unfolded and their wellsprings given when needful. Words with a star are wholly new and are not inheld in the English Wordbook. Words with a dagger are new oversettings for words already bestanding in the English Wordbook. Loanoversettings from Latin are often forechosen over those from New High German in befallings where the Theedish loanoversetting makes a word that is more bewildering than the Latinish one. However, here inheld are also some of the Theedish new words as other choices. These are marked "alternative", as they are not brooked in this leaf writ.