Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...artin Luther King’s writings how he relates back to John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau making his writing very well rounded towards the audience.
In Conclusion, all the authors are phenomenal writers who put into perspective the correlation between property and inequality. Each author has their own opinion, but not one author is necessarily wrong. They do a great job of describing the backings of a great society and the laws that make man kind do what they have done in the past and everyday including natural law and moral law. In the end everyone will have there opinion as to who's outlook is correct or who's opinion they agree with most. All three authors need to be praised for their works as they have influenced so many events in history. All we can do is read and take into consideration the sacrifices these authors made in order to help the world as we know it.
...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.
Locke clarified the problem by pointing out his notions that mostly derived from the natural state of human beings. Each man was originally born and predestined to have his own body, hands, head and so forth which can help him to create his own labor. When he knew how to use his personal mind and labor to appropriate bountiful subjects around him, taking them "out of the hands of...
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 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.
While history continues to be made everyday that goes by, we take a look at three famous philosophers to interpret their ideas. These philosophers include John Locke, Karl Marx, and Niccolo Machiavelli. They all have something in common, which is to observe and form an opinion on the human nature of people and how society works as a whole. Even though all three discuss about the same topic, their ideas are quite different from one another. While Locke and Marx place their opinions on human reasoning, Machiavelli does not. Each of their opinions derived from the actions that people make, such as Locke, who believes that all humans are created equal, Marx who believes that people are consciously good and will do the right thing to balance society, and Machiavelli on the other hand, who believes people are selfish and will act in accordance to their best interest.
What John Locke was concerned about was the lack of limitations on the sovereign authority. During Locke’s time the world was surrounded by the monarch’s constitutional violations of liberty toward the end of the seventeenth century. He believed that people in their natural state enjoy certain natural, inalienable rights, particularly those to life, liberty and property. Locke described a kind of social contract whereby any number of people, who are able to abide by the majority rule, unanimously unite to affect their common purposes. The...
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke proposes an idealized state of nature in which men are self-sufficient and content. The implications of his idealized population lead him to derive the existence of government from its own theoretical roots: Locke proposes government as a naturally occurring consequence of his state of nature. This derivation is founded on the injustice of man in his natural state: it is the imperfections found in the state of nature that necessitate government. This paper aims to show why the inequality caused by the existence of a market economy is an intentional and necessary path from Locke’s state of nature to the existence of the commonwealth. It will first argue that unequal possession is an inevitable consequence of property as defined by Locke. It will then show why this inequality is a necessary transition out of the state of nature for mankind. It will finally argue that each man’s consent to currency, and the injustice it brings, is the foundation for the overall consent to the commonwealth. The existence of inequality is naturally introduced and maintained throughout Locke’s argument. Hobbes successfully defends that economic inequality is both a natural and crucial part of political society; both the inequality of human ability and the resulting economic inequality precede the existence of an ideal state.
Locke’s emphasis on the importance of the creation of exchange value as the basis of property is an important rupture from preceding theorizations of property. It exemplifies a change in philosophy of property law that is important to Capitalism. Indeed, the very definition of Capitalism is “a system in which goods and services, down to the most basic necessities of life, are produced for profitable exchange” (Wood 2). Noteworthy is that a century after Locke's Second Treatise, his ideas are expressed and developed by in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.
Issues of property and ownership were important during the 18th century both to scholars and the common man. The case of America demonstrates that politicians, such as Thomas Jefferson, were highly influenced by John Locke’s ideas including those on property and the individual’s right to it. Readers in the revolutionary era were also deeply interested in issues of spirituality and independence and read Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Both Locke and Defoe address the issues of property, private ownership, and property accumulation, connecting them with the notions of individual and political independence. Although they appear to converge, their philosophies vary greatly on these topics. Several scholars conclude that both Defoe’s and Locke’s ideals support the development of a moral economy although neither express this desire directly.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
Political theories abound, considering many parts of society and the body politic. John Locke was one of the first to expound on the origins of property, and sixty-six years later Jean-Jacques Rousseau would also address the issues of property and inequality. According to Locke and Rousseau, the social contract is sanctioned by formal equalities yet creates or gives way to inequalities after it is formed. Though Locke would argue that inequalities in the private sphere don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the government, Rousseau would say justice gets deformed through inequality. Understanding how both equality and inequality can be present under the terms of the social contract is important because we cannot understand how to minimize inequalities if we do not first understand how they originated (origin). Inequality and equality can coexist under the terms of the social contract because the contract was formed under the influence of specious reasons with only an illusion of political equality.
According to John Locke in his "Second Treatise of Government", natural equality is an essential component of the state of nature; the ‘state of nature' being one of peace, tranquility, and equality, where there is no common power guided by reason. However, the lack of common power also supplies an inconvenience for the state of nature– the aptitude to fall into a state of war with no means to escape it. To avoid this "inconvenience", Locke finds it a necessity to form civil society ruled by a common authority of law. For a such government to preserve its legitimacy, the transition into civil society must maintain some degree of equality. The origination of property, the introduction of money, and furthermore the practice of slavery are three reasons certain aspects of natural equality are sacrificed in the conversion to civil society.