More handpicked essays just for you.
John Locke's views on property
John Locke's conception of inequality of wealth
John Locke and private property
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John Locke's views on property
I. The proper measure of material wealth is in money and assets. A. The proper measure of material wealth is money. John Locke is famously known for his list of unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” According to Locke, God has given the world to all of mankind, as well as given mankind the ability to reason and thus make use of the world (Locke, p. 52). The world, and the property therein, has not been bestowed on any individual person. Therefore, in order for “property” to exist, man must appropriate everything in its natural state in order to give one person the property right to it, at the exclusion of all others (Locke, p.53). Man has the ability to labor, which arises from the property he has in himself. Man can use that ability to take things from the commonwealth of the earth, annex it, and exclude it from the common right of others (Locke, p.53). …show more content…
God provided a large enough earth so that every man would be able to have some portion of it (Locke, p. 54). However, the land itself is not what necessarily provides the value of the property; rather, the measure of property comes from man’s ability to labor and produce the conveniences of life from that land (Locke, p.54). While Locke believed that that was enough land on earth to provide every occupant with what they could make use of, he concedes that the measure of material wealth shifted with the human invention of money and the social agreement to place value on money (Locke, p. 54). Thus, the true measure of material wealth is measured in the amount of money that a person
In Second Treatise of Government John Locke characterizes the state of nature as one’s ability to live freely and abide solely to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no such thing as private property, manmade laws, or a monarch. Locke continues to say that property is a communal commodity; where all humans have the right to own and work considering they consume in moderation without being wasteful. Civil and Political Societies are non-existent until one consents to the notion that they will adhere to the laws made by man, abide by the rules within the community, allow the ability to appoint men of power, and interact in the commerce circle for the sake of the populace. Locke goes further to state that this could be null in void if the governing body over extends their power for the gain of absolute rule. Here, Locke opens the conversation to one’s natural right to rebel against the governing body. I personally and whole heartily agree with Locke’s principles, his notion that all human beings have the natural right to freedoms and the authority to question their government on the basis that there civil liberties are being jeopardized.
According to John Locke, men were "promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties; they should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection." (Second Treatise of Government, p8). The basic principle teaching is that God has given the earth to humankind in common, to the posterity of men so that they will have enough to subsist and flourish. Everything in its natural state is provided to commonwealth for "the support and comfort of their being." (John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, p 18). So no one originally can have the right to posses that public property. However, history has proven that every man still has the right to own, to enrich and protect his property; how can that "private dominion" come into being?
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...
John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary to be free.
In the United States' Declaration of Independence the founding fathers stated: "…held certain truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
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
2. Locke is a bit confused for himself about this question. Then he backs it up simply by using the results that the state of Nature brings. Locke says, “man in the state of nature is an absolute lord of his own person and possessions, though he has such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure.” This is the reason why man quits from such an idea and goes on finding a more compatible political society. The ability for the man to create such commonwealths that benefit everyone is a secure road for them to preserve their property, Locke explains.
For individual property to exist, there must be a means for individuals to appropriate the things around them. Locke starts out with the idea of the property of person; each person owns his or her own body, and all the labor that they perform with the body. When an individual adds their own labor, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labor. This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent of humankind in general, each person has license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative.
It is stated by John Locke that in the state of nature no man may take more then he can consume. “…make use of any advantage of life before it spoils…whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. (Locke 14)” Locke then goes on to say, “God gave the world to man … for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational- and labor was to be his title… (Lock 15)”
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...
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
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.
It is also believed that wealth should be non-existent. This is only possible if cl...
Locke theorizeds extensively on property, privatization, and the means an individual can use for increasing his property. Initially, in the state of nature, man did not own property in the form of resources or land. All fruits of the earth were for the use of all men,“and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state” (Locke 353). In this state, people could appropriate only what they could make use of. It was unfair for one person to take more than he could use because some of that natural commodity would go to waste unless another man might have made use of it for his own benefit (360). Locke felt that God gave the bounties of nature to the people of earth and they, by default, should treat these bounties rationally. This rationalistic theory discourages waste.
Although it has been said that money is the root of all evil, many people actually believe that they would be happier if they were wealthier. Could this be correct? This essay will support the thesis that not only does the pursuit of wealth not lead to happiness; it may actually make us unhappy.