The state of nature and state of war are distinct conditions

Evidence

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 reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject. — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 27

Categorization

• DEFINE: Locke sharply separates his ‘state of nature’ from Hobbesian war: peace among rational equals governs nature, and only force without appeal converts it to war.
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Slavery is a continuing state of war, not a legitimate compact — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 32; Despotical power arises only from forfeiture in war, never from compact — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 209; The state of nature is by definition a condition of enmity and injustice. — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab: A History of the…, 398 (+1 more)

Related

• The state of nature is by definition a condition of enmity and injustice. (similarity 0.86)
• Slavery is a continuing state of war, not a legitimate compact (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• The state of nature is by definition a condition of enmity and injustice. #contradicts (0.90) — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 398
• The state of war arises only when two men desire the same thing #contradicts (0.80)