John Locke and the Unequal Distribution of Wealth

784 Words2 Pages

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)”

Both of statements can stand alone, each could be argued. For starters, it is not only selfish to take more then you ever will be able to use, it is just stupid, and if you make it with your sweat, why shouldn’t it be yours to keep or profit from. The only problem is, that one of these statements is the head of a starving serpent, and the other its delicious tale. It is hard to believe the head could stay alive without devouring the tale. We should start this argument at the head and work our way down.

If John Locke were alive today he would be a lawyer. Not just any lawyer though, a big business lawyer working for a company like Enron. He would try to justify the destruction caused by overly rich, overly powerful people, with statements such as ones that will follow. When first reading Locke you might think, “ Hey, this guy sounds like a lawyer....

Show More
Related

  • Compare and Contrast the Work of Martin Luther King Jr & Malcolm X

    915 Words  | 2 Pages

    Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were very significant during the Civil Rights Movement. Both were excellent speakers and shared one goal but had two different ways of resolving it. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to resolve the issues by using non-violence to create equality amongst all races to accomplish the goal. Malcolm X also wanted to decrease discrimination and get of segregation but by using another tactic to successfully accomplish the similar goal. The backgrounds of both men were one of the main driven forces behind the ways they executed their plans to rise above the various mistreatments. Martin Luther King Jr. was a more pronounced orator, a more refined leader, and overall saw the larger picture than Malcolm X.

    Read More

  • Separate and Unequal

    966 Words  | 2 Pages

    Until the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., his life’s work was dedicated to the nonviolent actions of blacks to gain the freedoms they were promised in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 by Abraham Lincoln. He believed that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King, 1963). These injustices had become so burdensome to blacks that they were “plunged into an abyss of despair” (King, 1963). The nonviolent actions of the sit-ins, boycotts, and marches were so the “individual could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths…to help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism” and ultimately lead to “inevitably opening the door to negotiation” (King, 1963). Not only was King’s approach effective with the older black generation, it was also successful with white people. They did not feel threatened when approached by King. White people gained a sense of empathy towards the plight of black freedom as King’s promise of nonviolence did not threaten their livelihood. Malcolm X viewed the world similarly to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., however; his beliefs to changing the status quo were slightly different from his political counterpart. Malcolm X realized that “anger could blind human vision” (X, 1965). In realizing this, X knew that in order to achieve racial freedom blacks had to “forget hypocritical politics and propaganda” (X, 1965). While Malcolm X was more so an advocate for violent forces against white people than King, X merely used force when it became necessary for defense. According to X, “I don’t go for non-violence if it also means a delayed solution. I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to American black man’s problem” (X, 1965). However, this le...

    Read More

  • Locke, Rousseau, and King

    929 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Comparing Malcolm X and Martin Luther King

    1451 Words  | 3 Pages

    These great leaders came from vastly different backgrounds which is shown in their thinking on life, especially early on. Martin was a Christian from the rural south, whilst Malcolm had become a Muslim from the urban north. King called for love of your neighbor, integration and nonviolence, which was part of his American Dream. Malcolm X called for self-love, separation, and "by any means necessary", which was part of his Black Nationalism. Throughout their lives their views were constantly changing, largely affected by each other, but also by the many events in their lives. Malcolm X forced King to become more radical and to look into the problems of the urban north. King made X become more politically active and work much more with the Civil Rights Movement. Although many have often said that they were "like oil and water", these two men, however different they may have seemed to be, had the same goal. They wanted to end exploitation, discrimination and racism. Also, for both, religion was primary in defining their lives and ideals. There are two distinct phases in their political lives. For King, the change in his outlook came when he looked at the social problems of the urban slums, and the extent of racism of his previous allies. This turning point came with the riots in Watts, Los Angeles. For Malcolm X, the major change came when he broke from the Nation of Islam and went on his trip to Mec...

    Read More

  • College Athletes: Should They Receive Additional Pay?

    1303 Words  | 3 Pages

    Should college athletes get paid an additional salary? They are an important assets to universities and colleges, so why should they not? How else would universities justify taking advantage of these young men and women? These are questions that arise when pondering the issue. This has been a large controversy over the years of rather or not college athletes should be paid, more specifically football and basketball players. However, they fail to mention that colleges are only considering paying a select few, the stars of the sports. Every single sport in colleges is making revenue for those campuses, making colleges money hungry. Thus, if they decide to only pay a select few, would that leave out women sports all together? Why pay college athletes more on top of everything they already receive? Most college athletes receive free tuition, medical care, meal plans and room and board, which can acquaint to more than a quarter million dollars for their entire college career (Scoop, 2013). Why ask for more? What is this teaching our youth? They should appreciate their chance to do what they love and value the education they are receiving, because that education is far more valuable than a potential sports salary. Even though colleges and college athletes have a few good points on why they believe they should get paid, over all the issue is larger than that, college athletes already make their share of “money” through free education and much more.

    Read More

  • The Enlightenment and the Declaration of Independence

    415 Words  | 1 Pages

    John Locke was an English philosopher who lived during 1632-1704. In political theory he was equally influential. Contradicting Hobbes, Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance; all human beings were equal and free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions." The state formed by the social contract was guided by the natural law, which guaranteed those inalienable rights. He set down the policy of checks and balances later followed in the U.S. Constitution; formulated the doctrine that revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation; and argued for broad religious freedom.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Martin Luther King Jr And Malcolm X

    1115 Words  | 3 Pages

    Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X paved a significant path towards a racially neutral society. There is no doubt that both Martin and Malcolm influenced a whole generation of rebels to fight racism and discrimination. Martin Luther King Jr. had a more peaceful standpoint to attempt to solve racism. Malcolm X on the other hand used violence and force to get the necessary results. They both shared a common objective, but took different actions to achieve the goal.

    Read More

  • College Athletes Should Be Paid

    923 Words  | 2 Pages

    Should college athletes receive pay for what they do? You’ve probably seen this pop-up a million times, and thought about it. You’ve probably figured why should they? Aren’t they already receiving benefits from a full-ride scholarship? But then an athlete will get caught up in a scandal like Johnny Manziel, where he signed footballs for money.. then you think well why shouldn’t he receive that money? And you then contradict yourself. But shouldn’t they receive money from outside sources, and then the benefits from the school. Not get a salary from the school just the benefits they’re already receiving, and money from sponsors. Wouldn’t that make sense considering the money they’re making the school? According to an ESPN report Alabama University makes $123,769,841 in total revenue from sports. (College Athletics Revenue) Yes ONE HUNDRED & TWENTY THREE MILLION. Yet an athlete from Alabama can only receive benefits from a scholarship.. That doesn’t seem right. You would want to be payed when the opportunity arises. It should only be fair these players get a piece of the revenue pie, after all they are the ones creating the revenue. The players should be getting benefits to allow them to pay for basic college needs, grow up to be responsible adults, and allow the NCAA to thrive. This would allow for the NCAA to truly thrive as a sporting association.

    Read More

  • John Locke: America’s Forgotten Founding Father

    1721 Words  | 4 Pages

    John Locke is the most influential character in American history, thought, and practice. Without the influence of his writings, America would not have the same foundation of unalienable Rights, stable governance, and quality of life. However, Locke remains widely unknown and unstudied by the newer generations of Americans. His most influential work, the Second Treatises of Government, laid the ground, both theoretically and institutionally, for the American system of government that has been enjoyed for over two centuries. His influence on the American way of thinking is made evident when examining the text of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

    Read More

  • The Argument for Paying NCAA Football Players

    2003 Words  | 5 Pages

    Even the waterboy gets paid! NCAA football is a billion dollar a year empire, in which coaches, executives, school presidents, board members, athletic trainers, athletic directors, equipment managers, Waterboys, towel boys, ball boys, and even team mascots all receive a chunk of the revenue. Everyone gets paid except the athletes, who don’t receive a dime of the money. That’s because it’s against NCAA rules to pay college athletes with anything other than an athletic scholarship; anything else, and it’s deemed as an improper benefit, thus making an athlete ineligible if he/she were to accept. The NCAA defends its rule of “no-pay” by claiming that all its student-athletes are “amateurs” and not employees; therefore, they’re legally not compensated. The argument over whether student-athletes should be paid or not, is particularly unsettling within the sport of football, because NCAA football is the most popular and profitable sport of all college athletics. The NCAA’s discrepancy over whether it should pay its players or not, currently has the association fighting a lawsuit filed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, who’s suing for compensation on behalf of former Division I football and men’s basketball players. The lawsuit challenges the NCAA’s use of student-athletes’ images and likeness for commercial purposes (PBS.org). In recent months the argument has been geared more towards whether current student-athletes should be paid or not, particularly football players, who like former Texas A&M star quarterback Johnny Manziel, provide the athleticism and entertainment that makes NCAA football the million dollar empire that it is. So, should college football players be paid?

    Read More

  • Same War, Different Tatics

    1236 Words  | 3 Pages

    Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were both important activists in the fight for civil rights. They had the same desire for equal rights; however, they adopted very different views on how to achieve those rights. As Goldman says in Malcolm X: Witness for the Prosecution, “Malcolm and King were not so much Manichaean opposites as halves in a yin-yang duality deep in the black soul” (pg. 226). King is known as a peaceful man who used a nonviolent approach. He used what he called “weapons of love” to fight for freedom. King was fighting to show people that they could accept blacks and look at them as equals. It was vital for him to find peace among all races and overcome the hatred felt for one another. Malcolm used an “any means necessary" approach in his fight. He was fighting to show African Americans that they should be proud of whom they were. The empowerment of his people was more important to him than living peacefully with whites. Although the tactics they used differed with one in other, King and Malcolm both inspired African Americans to fight for justice and the civil rights they deserved.

    Read More

  • Theory Of Property In John Locke's Second Treatise Of Government

    1562 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Rousseau and Marx: Property and Inequality

    1831 Words  | 4 Pages

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx both had the similar notion that property was the root of inequality, even though they both lived in different eras. Rousseau, who lived during the 18th century, was a staunch proponent of the idea that property gave rise to inequality, due to its unequal distribution. Similarly, Marx, who lived during the 19th century, contended that property gave rise to inequality because it created a class conflict between that of the upper class bourgeoisie, and the working class proletariat. However, for Rousseau, there was an underlying force that gave rise to property and that was amour propre. In simplest terms, amour propre is the vanity and self-love that leads one to seek personal gain, even if it may be at the expense of others (Rousseau 63). Rousseau argued that amour propre and private property were the sources of inequality because they drove man away from his natural state where he was equal amongst others.

    Read More

  • Essay On John Locke

    1554 Words  | 4 Pages

    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)

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Martin Luther King And Malcolm X

    951 Words  | 2 Pages

    To start of, both Dr. King and Malcolm X had different philosophical approaches on accomplishing civil rights for African Americans. After a rough childhood and a drug addiction in Harlem, Malcolm X turned a new leaf in prison. He began studying and educating himself again,

    Read More

More about John Locke and the Unequal Distribution of Wealth

Open Document