Some thoughts while reading John Locke's "Two treatises of government". Let's dive in.

".. it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction." (Chapter 3.16)

Here Locke identifies the practical necessity of evaluating and responding to threats. He is primarily considering the threats of an abusive government.

".. and hence it is that he who attempts to get another man under his power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (3.17)

This is real talk. Locke is using logic to identify when a person or government is at war with a person. The moment this happens is when one the aggressor seeks to make another person dependent and place then under their power.

Locke continues:

"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; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom -- i.e. make me a slave." (3.18)

Locke brings pure dynamite here by invoking only his reasoning. Why would a voluntarist want complete control over you? He wouldn't. A voluntarist leaves you alone, except if you abuse children, but that's a violation of consent - only adults can fully consent.

The voluntarist therefore is not a threat to any honest, moral man. But the authoritarian, he that seeks "absolut kontroll",, that is a man who is not going to respect your liberties.

Let's return to Locke:

".. so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me." (3.18)

Locke expands:

"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 as 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, let his pretense be what it will, 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 that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it." (3.19)

My reflections.

Lockes logic is extraordinarily true when applied to Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. These policies requires the State to implement CBDC's, digital ID and social credit scores. When these are implemented, that regime is, following Lockes reasoning, in a state of war against every individual, since it seeks absolute power over every individual. Logic together with history informs us that such power will be abused -- it is at most a matter of time until it is abused.

The worst criminals are expert at gaining a high rank in a totalitarian society: they have no values and can therefore parrot every official doctrine of a regime with the convincing belief of a trained actor, regardless how immoral or absurd that doctrine is. We know therefore that the worst humans will always end up leading a totalitarian society. Therefore, a totalitarian society is by its own essence of absolute control, at war with liberty.