Problem
For Locke, it is a violation of natural law and of the right of self-preservation to take away another's liberty or to sell one's freedom to another. This action also defeats the whole purpose of government, which is to defend the property, understood as "life, liberty, and estates," of individuals. Yet he argues that there are times when it is justifiable to enslave other people, and even to take their "estates" from them.
• Question I: Given his overall emphasis on limited sovereign power, the need for express consent, and the natural freedom and equality of all individuals, why does Locke justify slavery?
• Question II: On what grounds does Locke make this argument?
• Question III: Is Locke's defense of slavery an anomaly, or is it consistent with his account of human nature and civil society?