Replies

"Whosoever, therefore, out of a state of Nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into society to the majority of the community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals that enter into or make up a commonwealth. And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world." -- John Locke

You are taking Locke out of context. He is not saying that people give up their freedoms to government for it to dispense as it sees fit, but in accordance with liberal philosophical views they are giving up their natural rights for civil rights (the civilized equivalents). Like refining a diamond so that it has more value. The Lockean liberal society is not one where the government has unlimited power, far from it. It is a society where freedom is only limited so as to promote freedom for the whole. That is why no rights are absolute; any right taken to its utter extreme violates the rights of all. Therefore the right to security cannot come at the expense of the right to privacy in one's home or ownership of one's belongings. There is no classical liberal justification for the WOD, only a pseudo-religious one promulgated out of fear by "conservatives."