The State of Nature and War for Locke

Locke's description of the state of nature of man differs from Hobbes in that it is not necessarily a state of war. Locke distinguished between the two by designating the state of nature as that community of "men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth," and the state of war as "the declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief." [Ch. 3 P. 19] Locke avoids an inevitable state of war by defining reason as "that law which teaches all mankind that no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." [Ch. 2 P. 6] Everyone is obliged to follow reason in the state of nature, and therefore the state of war only emerges when an offender "declares himself to live by another rule than that or reason" by harming another, but not necessarily, because the first state of humanity is one of peace under the right rule of reason. [Ch. 2 P. 8]

So then, how does the state of war appear at all? Locke avoids the supposition that all uncivilized communities will probably be in a state of war by explaining that "it is impossible for any man to entrench upon the right of another, or acquire, to himself, a property, to the prejudice of his neighbor, who would still have room, for as good, and as large a possession (after the other had taken out his) as before it was appropriated." [Ch. 5 P. 36] This so-called 'Land of Plenty' eliminates any reason for one person to by force take something from another. The only possible explanation given by Locke for why someone would exert force on another is found briefly in paragraph 37 of Ch. 5, where he says "the desire of having more than men needed altered the intrinsic value of things." Therefore someone suffering under excessive desire would, against reason, employ force against another to obtain more than needed, and thereby enter into a state of war with that person. This is expressly against reason because reason would dictate first that one should never harm another, and second that resources are plentiful and can always be obtained by one's own labor, yet in both instances the desire overrules reason. It seems then that the state of war is due to a heedless observance of reason in that which we desire, and desire is the "other rule" that offenders live by.