Ramblings;My Son Jaden and I have been discussing Locke’s idea’s that the natural state of man is to have absolute liberty while the idea of any government is an agreed upon set of rules all members of that government have agreed to abide by for the benefit of the group that comprises the government. Thus the absolute state of liberty cannot exist within the framework of any government because even if a government were to have a rule to have no rules that would put a restriction on the individual. Perhaps that individual wanted to have a rule. That would place the individual in conflict with the government. In order for the individual to be in harmony with the government the individual must agree to limits on liberty. It is also in man’s best interest to have a set of rules to exist by. If not, one man’s liberty will over ride another’s. Let ‘s say Bob decides to bludgeon Dan because Dan ate the last donut and then Pete decides to bludgeon Bob because Bob ate the last taco. “Note: I think the taco offense is greater, but that’s just me ” The interference in each other’s absolute liberty can only lead to chaos, thus the thinking man devises the best way to realize the maximum amount of liberty is to voluntarily give some up to purchase harmony with the rest of the members of the group. Ideally the best governance would be that which restricts liberty the least.Isn’t the balance of these two objectives the fundamental reason we have different political views?How many times have we all overheard, “You’re not the boss of me, I can do whatever I want!” or seen a YouTube video with a driver telling a police officer they are wrong. Recently it has been protestors standing in the middle of roads blocking traffic. Our civil society is at the crossroads with those that are enjoying the benefits of the society and are accepting that others are willing to have limits placed on their liberty while not being willing to accept those same limits themselves. That’s going to lead to more Donut and Taco crisis’s.