e."[pg 18] Here lies the problem. If all human beings are to use the earth to their best advantage' and the earth is the common property of all, someone somewhere will have conflicting interests with another human being over the possession of some thing. The only remedy is to sacrifice his/her equality by consent (It is not likely that one would surrender equality to another) OR to enter a state of war.' The only protection against the state of war in John Locke's opinion is to enter into civil society governed by a common authority. By taking this measure, Locke insists humankind can better protect itself against war and preserve the right to enjoy what one possesses, ". . . because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property" [pg. 18].Entering civil society requires handing over one's executive rights and submitting to a common authority by law. So, according to Locke's definition of equality, giving up one's natural executive rights means natural equality is no longer truly existent. Though we are all still born to the same advantages of nature', and we still share the same faculties', and we still do not gain the right to subordinate' another human being, we consent to subordinate our personal freedoms and liberties to a common law for our own welfare. By consenting to this authority, we eliminate total natural equality, giving away the power over our own lives. In addition, true equality asserts that no man is superior to another. But, to legitimize possessions is to institute a means for subordination, in that an individual who is the sole possessor of a good or service has dominion over the use of that good or service. Under this system of possession, where one individual has dominion over one good, and a separate individual has possession over a separate but equally desirable good, the individuals must establish trade with one another to enjoy the exclusive ...
