Is A State of Nature Really Possible?

Locke discusses the “state of nature” to attempt to explain people’s natural instincts. According to Locke, within the state of nature there is total equality. No human being has the right to force any one to do something he does not want to do. The power in the state of nature is evenly distributed with God as their leader because as Locke points out in the first chapter, we do not know who the heirs of Adam are. The primary duty of a man who is in the state of nature is to have “mutual love amongst men” meaning that each owes the other not only respect but also compassion because we are all born to the same nature (Chp.2). Although if crime does occur within the state of nature, the wronged has a right to punish the criminal. But only to the extent in which he, the wronged, has been taken advantage of. For example, if someone was to assault me, then I have the right to assault him. To me, this idea of having absolutely no authority seems chaotic and unrealistic to today’s world. As Locke says “it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self love will make men partial to themselves and their friends” (Chp.2). With each case, the wronged is the judge who probably will be affected by emotions.
Locke believes that we remain within this state of mind, until we choose to remove ourselves from it by becoming a member of some other political society (Chp. 2). This political society that one opts to join may not allow one to completely enjoy the state of nature’s equality. One must sacrifice perhaps his liberty in order to go about leaving the state of nature. The problem with Locke’s state of nature is that the society would not work without everyones cooperation and responsibility. Unfortunately, we cannot force people to love one another or to even to simply respect each other.