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. To be free from such force is the only security of my
preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my
preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it;
so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into
a state of war with me. He that, in
the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one
in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away
every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as
he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging
to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to
take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state
of war.
Sec. 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, 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 pretence 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 every thing 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
does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is
aggressor in it.
Sec. 19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of
nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are
as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and
preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual
destruction, are one from another. Men living together according to