John Locke Argue That Private Property Philosophy Essay

John Locke Argue That Private Property Philosophy EssayAlmost all modern nonions of orphic spot and its canon is based on motives advocated by John Locke . His theory has been applied to the property rights of physical and intellectual objects -even extending to international law- however, various interpretations of his opinions exist (Nozick, 1974, pp. 167-182 Tuckness, 2011 Waldron, 2002, pp. 152-184 Widerquist, 2010, pp. 3-4).1These analyses range from MacPhersons class-based capitalism to Waldrons moderate ownership rights and also see James Tully argue that Locke promoted limits of civil society (Discourse on Property, 1980, pp. 131-150 Widerquist, 2010, pp. 3-5).This paper aims to give an account of John Lockes argument for property rights as described in his book The Two Treatises of Civil Government and then critically analyse it to establish its political philosophy and likely consequences. In closure it will argue that as various -and often incompatible and contradic tory- interpretations of his theory take hold been suggested and incorporated in different political ideologies, it is impossible to ascribe a certain set of political consequences to the right to private property as advocated by Locke.2First assumptionsFirst, let us follow Locke in his argument that private property is a natural human right. He begins by assuming that it is a right intended in nature and commanded by God that military man should preserve itself (Locke, 1689, 25). He makes a further assumption that God has given the world to men in common to use and to flourish (Locke, 1689, 26). These two assumptions along with a statement that man owns his person and labour, make the basis of his arguments for the right to private property (Locke, 1689, 27).DefinitionsLimits/provisosNo-wasteVarious critiques of Lockes Treatises have identified sets of limits to what he advocates (I) there should be no waste or destruction, (II) and that one should leave plenty, enough, and as s teady-going in common for others (Locke, 1689, 27 MacPherson, 1962, pp. 210-212 Widerquist, 2010, pp. 7-11). Widerquist (2010, p. 8) also mentions a third proviso of beneficence among the scholarly interpretations of Lockean appropriation, but Locke (1689, 40-45) does not mention it directly in chapter five of his second book. In short, the first proviso -no-waste- asserts that property is to be used and enjoyed deep down bounds of reason, where nothing is destroyed or spoilt (Locke, 1689, 31 Widerquist, 2010, pp. 7-8). Locke (1689, 32,38,46) also argues that any appropriator can take as much as they can use, consume, and motif but not anything more.Second proviso, enough and as goodJustificationGiving back/taking nothingLocke (1689, 27-37) even argues that an appropriator, by the act of victimization and benefitting from their property and creating plenty produce, is giving back to the common property. He goes as far as justifying enclosing visit by demonstrating that the enou gh-and-as-good proviso ensures that the appropriator does as good as take nothing at all (Locke, 1689, 33 Widerquist, 2010, p. 9).Happiness/Plenty produced/value of labourIn section 37 (Locke, 1689) he claims that owning and cultivating land increases human happiness. He makes a comparison between the quality of life that Native Americans had and people in Britain redressing this argument in defence of capitalism (Locke, 1689, 37,41,43,46). prospectiveLocke begins his theory of property in the state of nature.Money/invalidation of provisosCivil society/governmentWhen the Civil society is established these property rights can both become subject to social agreement or be carried over in their entirety and create a class-based social interaction where some have property and others dont (Widerquist, 2010, p. 20). Moreover, his provisos maybe be changed or used to justify government intervention (Widerquist, 2010, p. 20).CritiqueContextual, ChristianityLike any other theory, Lockes the ory of property is not without problems. The first and most important of them is the reasons behind its creation. Locke was trying to reconcile Christianity with capitalism, two very different philosophies.Reconciling Christianity and capitalismCapitalism increases poverty, artificial wants, waste, and private propertyLocke argues, Utilitarianism is most important and most ChristianAcknowledges and supports inequality and class systemArgues common good is more important that common propertyReligious v secularLockes theory of property is based on 17th century requirements of reconciling the church with the new ideas of capitalism. The first critiques that comes to mind is whether a reasonable argument for the religious society of almost 400 years ago still holds for more-or-less secular society of 21st century. It certainly makes a difference that the extent of the powers of the religious authority is far reduced since. Some scholars argue that more secular ideas like socialism or ju stice as fairness fit better with the requirements of our age.UnfairnessWhether an argument based on religion is still valid or not, it is safe to assume that humankind has always been concerned with fairness. Locke (1689, 46-51) sees this fairness in the initial acquisition, when there was more than enough in nature for all to appropriate as they could. Locke supports inheritance of rights as fair but in the constituent(a) inequality that ensues finds many on the wrong side of his argument. There are many incompatible definitions of fairness, but in considering the merits of Lockes theory, some scholars find the nullification of limits final result