The Dangers of Locke

There was much within the work of John Locke that I enjoyed. However, it is important to understand that we live in a country that has been greatly influenced by Locke's philosophy and as a result we find ourselves biased towards many of his thoughts. Once this bias is removed it is possible to view his philosophy with an open mind and judge it on its own merit rather then the relative success of the United States of America.
The main issue that I have with Locke is his comment regarding his "state of nature" or rather what he would more likely refer to as "natural reason". Locke believes that, "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is the law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possession..." (pg 9) This is a dangerously optimistic view of human nature. As opposed to Hobbes more pragmatic view that people are inherently self interested and thus in the state of nature there is a war of all against all, for everyman is indeed for himself. Locke's view implies that even without government, people will have an inherent reason to their actions and that even when there is no government there ought not to be a reason to harm another. This sounds nice but is not realistic. Thus, when applied to reality Locke's view of nature suggests that those who harm others are in fact operating outside reason (either through defect or loss of their reason). There is no reason given in Locke to understand why someone would act against natural reason (either in the state of nature, or in the case of conflict). However, Hobbes gives a wonderful and familiar one, self interest and desire are the motivators that are intrinsic in all of us. These are the things that enable us to act against natural reason and serve to explain conflict at all levels of human interaction. Locke addresses not the causes of these conflicts, or the root of acting outside of natural reason. Without this explanation there is a large component of humanity missing, and there is the possibility that similar to his unrealistic views of the state of nature perhaps his methods for governance are also realistic and assume too much of humanity.