Property This is an explication of Chapter 5 of John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689). The focus will be on property. By the end of this explication readers will have an understanding of property through explaining individual property, who it should belong to, and how it should be controlled. Locke, when talking about what makes property individual, states that “he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” (Locke, 1690, Sect. 27). When the person “removes out of the state that nature hath provided” they take something produced by nature and gather it, in doing so they have put their labour …show more content…
26). With everything on Earth being shared by every living person or animal, it is only fair that whatever is produced by Earth is fair game for whomever wants to take some. In other words, everything the Earth produces naturally is meant for all the creatures that live within it to feast off of its products. This is because “no body has originally a private dominion" and “the labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his” (Locke, 1690, Sect. 27); Locke says it is fair for people to own property. This means that because everyone has the right to what comes out of the world, and since their labour is theirs, people have just as much right to property as the person beside them, and anyone in the …show more content…
Private property can be many things, from your house to the pencil you use to write notes. It is your property and no one should be able to take that from you. When it came to wanting to treat people fairly and the same, Marx had some views that could still be used to this day. Even though Locke and Marx are similar in that they wish for fairness to be at the main focus of the government, they differ on how they believe in their government. Locke sees the government with optimism while Marx only holds condescending views revolving around it. In his writings Karl Marx refutes many of John Locke’s views and perceptions on private property, government, and labour and how they affect society. Body Paragraph 1 ¥ First I would talk about Marx’s view on how there is a hierarchy of rights and the one on top is property ¥ Then give some examples on why I believe that it is wrong ¥ I would then talk about how Locke’s view makes more sense because it doesn 't talk only about how people will want to screw each other over but instead we grab enough and share the rest ¥ I would then conclude which argument was stronger and why ¥ Then a transition sentence Body Paragraph
...s his argument by emphasizing the absolute reason on why property is solely for the use to produce goods and provide services by farming one’s land or building infrastructures; nevertheless the overuse of one’s land exhibits what Locke calls waste, whereas the consumption of goods for the use of trade can result in bartering and wealth. The introduction of wealth creates the motivation for people feel compelled to protect their wealth which leads us back to the concept of entering into a civil or political society for security. Locke believes that civil and political society can ensure the stability, security, and social structure of any given society; but he points out that if the government becomes a tyranny or corrupt only than shall the populace exercise their right to question the authority and overthrow if needed.
Although this manifesto is small, it emanates one of the most recognized and well thought out political arguments in history. The basis of Marx’s reasoning for the use of this type of gov-ernment is seemingly straightforward. He believed all resources in a nation should be distributed equally to all citizens, so that the division of social classes would cease to exist and to make sure there was no exploitation of any citizens. Marx also wanted the abolition of owning private prop-erty, which is the main contributor to the bourgeoisie’s source of wealth. Marx broke this manifes-t...
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...
1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another. He makes a strong suggestion by saying, “that creatures of the same species and rank, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” For people to confirm the state of Nature, a law is set that obliges people to follow and consult it. The Law of Nature brings many things that need to be followed by each person. Locke describes the law’s consequences if not obeyed by saying, “the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.” Every law is fair and equal to every person. As you have equal rights, you may also be punished equally if you don’t obey it.
...believed it kept many in bonds or slavery. While Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that freedom was attained by entering into a social contract with limits established by good will and community participation. Both theories would put restraints on personal property and capital creating ownership relinquished to the state. He believed that laws to protect citizens could not keep up with the changing economic environment. One could conclude that Marx and Rousseau’s theories were relatively close in the role that it plays between citizens and personal property ownership.
First, Locke believes that everyone has the opportunity to cultivate the land that they own, which ideally is a proportionate share of the surrounding environment, and nothing more (Locke, Sec. 36). Locke’s theory of property is not just relative to physical entities, it can be an intellectual entity as well. An individual may have certain experiences and knowledge, develop theories and come to their own conclusions. Publishing said works are seen as property in the eyes of Locke as well. Another strength would be the logic of Locke’s argument, if you input your labour, that commodity becomes your own. Truth of this can be seen in section 33 of Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, when Locke suggests that labour increases the value of land exponentially because when people own land themselves, they are more likely to increase the productivity of that land. According to Locke, the true value of land does not stem from the land, rather the labour invested in it. Locke’s theory however, does not take into account the processes in which someone becomes an owner. One of the main stances Locke outlines in his theory of property is that he equates property to being a natural right. Locke deems the right to private property to be equally important as life and liberty, however they cannot be
...ower by the proletariat.2 Marx then tries to eliminate the power of the Bourgeois by eliminating property. Without private property the Bourgeois cannot control business and create capital.
In order to examine either philosopher’s views on property and its origins, it is necessary to go back to the beginning of human development, as it were, and discuss their different conceptions of the state of nature. As opposed to Hobbes whose vision of the state of nature was a state of war, Locke’s state of nature is a time of peace and stability. “We must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom…A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” (Locke, Second Tre...
... in a way that lead to inequality. Marx similarly argues that private property has led to inequality, because it has put the means of production into the hands of the bourgeoisie, thereby subjugating the proletariat. Even though both men resided in different centuries, their theories are similar because they perceived the singular issue of inequality. As theorists they did differ on where equality would lie; Rousseau believed that man had lost equality as he evolved out of the natural state, whereas Marx believed equality had yet to be realized.
In this state of nature, according to Locke, men were born free and equal: free to do what they wished without being required to seek permission from any other man, and equal in the sense of there being no natural political authority of one man over another. He quickly points out, however, that "although it is a state of liberty, it is not a state of license," because it is ruled over by the law of nature which everyone is obliged to obey. While Locke is not very specific about the content of the law of nature, he is clear on a few specifics. First, that "reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it" and second, that it teaches primarily that "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life liberty or possessions." Hence, right from the beginning, Locke places the right to possessions on the same level as the right to life, health, and liberty.
This means everyone has the right to life but the right to life is not absolute right because of my example earlier in the introduction. Liberty is what you want to do when you want to do it on your own property as long as it does not harm any else’s life. Property is what you own and the way you that you own something is by “mixing labor” with it. Money was made some man can buy things, it also does not spoil which is good according to Locke. Money also has value as long as man agrees that it has value. I agree that income inequality is justifiable for reasons John Locke has said, and that without income inequality the economy would not be the way that it is now, and no one would be able to make more money than an other
Locke talked about a government that needed to stay out of the lives of the people that it was governing. He thought it was to controlling and made too many regulations on the everyday activities that people did. For example, it taxed everything, told people were to live, how to work, what they can and can’t do (Pourly 4). He just thought it was enough and they needed to go back to the way they used to live. Or they needed to redirect the way it was to a more democrat system. Locke knew all men were created equally and that no man should be more powerful then the next so, in his head why did the government have to be in control and take over so much power (Long 8)
In definition, private property is the right of persons and firms to obtain, own, control, employ, dispose of, and bequeath land, capital, and other forms of property. Private property is different from public property in which public property are assets owned by state or government compared to a private business or individual. Yet, in Marx’s opinion, “private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself. Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labor, of alienated man, of estranged labor, of estranged life, o...
According to Locke’s theory, a commodity becomes the private possession of an individual who labors for it. Thus it is no longer a direct gift of nature: [A man] “that so employed his pains about any of the spontaneous products of nature, as any way to alter them from the state which nature put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire a propriety in them” ( 360).