Quote Originally Posted by Kelb Panthera et al
Words
Well, yes, the law of nature, survival of the fittest, is tautological, because, as noted, it boils down to "do whatever you have to to survive."

This in turn can be divided into two parts - acquisitive and defensive. You acquire what you need to to survive, and you defend your acquisitions and your person against those who would threaten them.

I take an unsympathetic, Hobbesian view of the state of nature - which is basically a more detailed version of the "do what you have to to survive" model. Hobbes's theory is predicated on the idea that humans will be horrid to each other and the state has to eliminate the state of nature in order for society to work.

Locke's state of nature is similar, but he takes a progressive approach, and identifies the acquisitive part of the "law of nature" more clearly than Hobbes did. Locke's society is built around the principles of the laws of the state of nature and applying them in a relevant fashion to the social construct, rather than rejecting the state of nature as something to be avoided at all costs. It's an attempt to make civilisation work in accordance with human nature, rather than in opposition to it.

Of course, you could argue that it's "made up". But so is everything. So is the entirety of the human experience. Not just civilisation and language and rational thought: everything we perceive is filtered by our brain and we're presented with our own personal, largely fictionalised version of it. So unless we're going to take a Dadaist view of philosophy and politics and life, I just don't think it's a helpful road to travel. In fact, the idea of what is real, what is perceived, how these things originate, etc. is central to the Cartesian and empiricist schools of thought and forms the basis for much of the political philosophy that follows.

You are of course free to disagree, but the philosophy supporting it is rather more complex than seems to be being credited. I really would recommend reading more deeply, because I don't think you disagree with the early modern philosophers as sharply as you seem to think.