Enlightenment philosophy was quite thoroughly criticized by postmodernist thinkers like Foucault who showed that enlightenment was used as a tool and enabler of oppression. Your statements support that criticism.
Moreover, I am not convinced that quoting Locke, Hobbes and US judicial precedent provides enough proof that "every nation" has a "right" to "kill people in other countries". Enlightenment philosophy is not an ultimate argument, you know.
Personally, I think this viewpoint is morally bankrupt and no government employing this "right" should be supported by its citizens.
I find arguing about "right" and "wrong" in the abstract to be a boring exercise, because that just comes down to feelings and emotion. It's no fun to argue when there's no agreed-upon set of rules to argue within!
Here, I'm not arguing that my viewpoint is "right" or "wrong" or that Locke is "good" or "bad." I'm arguing that it's consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the Anglo-American legal and political system. Like it or not, Enlightenment thinking and Lockean philosophy in particular are an important reference point when evaluating questions about America's political system.
Moreover, I am not convinced that quoting Locke, Hobbes and US judicial precedent provides enough proof that "every nation" has a "right" to "kill people in other countries". Enlightenment philosophy is not an ultimate argument, you know.
Personally, I think this viewpoint is morally bankrupt and no government employing this "right" should be supported by its citizens.