Carlos: Locke - Law of Nature, Property, and Money

By

Locke begins with the idea that the state of nature is that of freedom to do anything one pleases without the consent or permission of another. Given this freedom, humans then use Reason to decide what actions and decision to make that will best "preserve" them. However, unlike Hobbes, Locke does as easily assume that this freedom extends to the lives of others. Instead, Locke argues that since all humans are equal, all born to the "same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties" (Ch. II, Par. 4), it would only make sense that other people would also seek the same happiness, safety, and prosperity that one would also desire. As such, harming others would be detrimental to others as much as it would be to ourselves. This is Locke's basis for the Law of Nature: an obligation that mankind not "harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" (Ch. II, Par. 6). Of course, to protect the wellbeing of all of mankind it is necessary that those who would harm others are dealt with to the extent that the harm is stopped and further prevented; "I should have [the] right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction" (Ch. III, Par. 16). For that reason, government is created to act as an impartial authority that can deal out the required punishment so that the safety of others is maintained. 

As a part of the Law of Nature, Locke acknowledges that property must be protected, further necessitating the need for a government. Although no one person or group was given possession of the earth, Locke admits that humans need the resources of the earth to survive and live, such as Reason would require us to make use of nature's resources. Even so, the Law of Nature would require that in taking parts of nature, humans only take up as much as they can "enjoy" (I don't agree with this requirement of enjoyment simply because Locke lived in a world with less mouths to feed, making enjoyment an easier test to pass). Any more than one can "enjoy" would cause the surplus to go to waste and would be stealing from others, breaking the Law of Nature. Still, if humans have equal access to all parts of nature, how would we distinguish what would belong to a single person and what is still available to the commons? Locke argues that labor mixed in with the natural resources made available to all makes those resources into the property of that person. Now understanding what differentiates the resources of one person from those of the commons, the government is further tasked with protecting the property of individuals.

Nevertheless, Locke's main issue with property rights then extends to the creation of money. Prior to money, Locke argues that people would only take as much as they would need, avoiding waste and looking down on overconsumption. Even if people did over consume, Locke points out that this could be fixed by trading with others for goods that would not go to waste. To me, this sounds like a great system (even if a bit idealistic), but Locke explains this system was undermined by the creation of money. Money allowed for people to overproduce and overconsume without the worry or repercussions of wasting goods. So in seeking to maximize our utility from the abundant resources, people began to hoard more than they needed. Bringing this idea into the present, I begin to see how bad this all played out as now there are less resources per person to go about while some continue to horde more and more. I don't think Locke's ideas of abundancy of resources still hold presently but his understanding of the harm of money was surely on target.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more