Unjust conquest confers no right over the conquered

Evidence

That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man’s right, can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered, will be easily agreed by all men, who will not think, that robbers and pyrates have a right of empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master; or that men are bound by promises, which unlawful force extorts from them. Should a robber break into my house, and with a dagger at my throat make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title, by his sword, has an unjust conqueror, who forces me into submission. The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown, or some petty villain. The title of the offender, and the number of his followers, make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 222

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Locke defines the moral equivalence between crown-wearers and petty thieves as violations of consent-based right.
  • XREF: connects to: Peace purchased by submission to force is worthless — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 285; Forfeited or expired legislative power reverts to the people to remake government — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 306; Conquest founds legitimate sovereignty because the defeated prefer life to death — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 111 (+4 more)

Broader Connections