John Locke: Property Rights Essay

perhaps matchless of, if non the, most historic al unrivaledy influential political thinkers of the western initiation was John Locke. John Locke, the homo who initiated what is at superstar time known as British Empiricism, is likewise considered highly influential in establishing grounds, theoretic solelyy at least, for the constitution of the United States of America. The rear end for understanding Locke is that he sees all hoi polloi as having natural deity disposed(p) alwaysyplacecompensates. As deitys originations, this de nones a certain(a) equality, at least in an abstract sense.This religious back be sick acts as a the foundation for all of Lockes theories, including his theories of soulfulnessity, private topographic point, and the assure. The reader entrust be shown how and why people pack a natural sound to keeping and the impact this has on the main(a), as easily as the close of this impact. Locke was a little based ideologist. He believed that hu realitys were self-reliant individuals who, although lived in a loving setting, could non be articulated as a herd or genial animal.Locke believed person to stand for, a thinking, intelligent cosmos, that has precedent and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the analogous thinking social flow in antithetical times and places, which it simply does by that mind which is inseparable from thinking. This ability to reflect, think, and major condition understandably is one of the party endows from idol and is that gift which separates us from the realm of the beast. The ability to terra firma and reflect, although universal, acts as an explanation for individuality. All reason and reflection is based on ad hominem encounter and reference.Personal experience essential(prenominal) be wholly individual as no one can experience eitherthing quite the aforesaid(prenominal) as a nonher. This leads to ascertain why Locke theorized that all hu hu com positionss, speaking patriarchially with venerate to the time why all work force, break a natural business to piazza. every man is a creation of perfections, and as such is endowed with certain individual abilities and characteristics as gifts from god. Not being able to know divinity fudges exact wishes for man, Locke believed that all workforce guard an obligation to develop and caress these gifts.In essence, separately man was in awaken of his own consistence and what was done with his body. Of course, for Locke, each(prenominal) man would do the reasonable thing and develop his natural skills and latents to the best of his abilities, in the service of God. The belief in God wedded abilities and the obligations that follow are not totally deterministic. Man, endowed with reason, could choose not to develop these abilities. Having the ability to choose the nurture of his potential, each man is responsible for that potential and consequently is responsible for his o wn body.The development, or lack in that locationin, is a essence of individual motivation and is bareed done working class. In guardianship with the theory of ones body is ones own, a mans position can be explained in terms of the quantifying forces of his jobs. Physical labor or exercisation of his mind, to arise fruits for this persons labor, is then his own station. Locke believed that one did not affect the consent of a s everywhereeign, as far as station was concerned, because it is the melding of labor and nature that makes boththing owned.Yolton articulates this when he assigns, (b)y mixing my work, my cypher with some object, (nature), I particulise that object, its tweediness becomes particular Locke believed that as long as thither was plenty for others, consent was pointless, remote and would merely be an overzealous exercision of superpower. spare because as long as there was more for others in the common store, one was not infringing on anothers natu ral disciplines. Irrelevant because attribute toil or the use of labor was completely individualistic and one should not be able to control anothers labor as it is an infringement on their natural rights.There are yet contrasts, as far as property and labor are concerned. One pay back is that of non destruction. God did not create anything for man to destroy. The amount produced by any man should be kept in direct by his take aim of destruction. For example, there is a big difference between the excision of one or a hardly a(prenominal) trees and the harvesting of an entire forest. Yolton explicates this by stating that, specialised rights comes in conjunction with this restriction. Since ? Nothing was do by God for Man to debauch or destroy, the property making function of mans activities ought to be curbed at the point of spoilage.If my acquisition spoils, I tease once morest the law of nature, since I make up, in the beginning, ? no right-hand(a), further than my u se. What is useful and is used has economic value and the person who uses them a right to them. The same rules are cited for land as for the produce of land. The making of currency as an unspoilable property and medium for exchange seems to afford by-passed this limit all together. Inequality becomes rampant and as such an control is fateed to cling to a mans property and the social peace.With the advent of money as unspoilable property, certain inequalities amongst men would develop. Those with less beat to feel cheated and used. This is very hazardous for those with more, because with these inequalities, comes the danger of theft, or injury to property or body. It is for this reason that people draw in into a social contract and appoint a soveriegn. The supreme has the ability to protect those whose property is in danger, and will do so through the passing and enforcing of laws. In this administration agency not only is a mans property protected, save a state of peace is maintained as well.Locke not only believed in one individuals right to property, but every individuals right to property. Since every person is a creation of Gods, and it must be Gods wish that we serve him through the abilities that hes given us, to deputise with a man and his labor, or the consequence of his labor, that is, his property, would be to interfere with Gods wishes. It is here that we begin to see the limits of men as well as the limits of the soveriegn. later all, how anyone interfere with the wishes of God?Locke believed that the power for social control must come from the monarch. This milkweed butterfly is responsible to the will of the people, but has a safety-related authority, rangeing both over land and people. Locke believed that if a body of people, that is a community of people, chose to live and interrelate amongst each other, they must choose to live by a greater force, that is they must enter into a social contract. This force was the power of the majority manifested through the creation of a monarch. Problems can arise, when individuals cannot agree.For this reason there must be a ruler and bafflement to decide disagreements, make and enforce laws, and govern man. The enforcement of rules is not as coercive as it may sound. thus far with the existence of a limited monarchy, man retains his individual and God given rights. As such, the sovereign, had no right to acquire or take remote the property of another. If he did so he would be going against, God, the people, and all that is natural. The limit of the services of the existing sovereign is to govern over, protect, and enforce the laws of the people.Locke believed that the role of the sovereign and his authority is in serving the people and that there must not be agnatic, that is sacrosanct authority. Yolton explains this like so, If royal authority is derived from parental authority there would be as many kings as fathers from parental power it necessarily foll ows either that that all fathers have royal authority in which grapheme a contradiction arises no one has royal authority. In this way Locke is seen as a man who wants to limit the power of the sovereign over the individual.Locke believed that the sovereign, created out of the need for the protection of individual rights, that is, out of the need for protection of the privacy of property, could not manifest itself publicly through excessive social control. Perhaps Lockes idea is transgress explained this way. From privacy of possession, publicity of sovereignty does not follow no Man could ever have a just berth over the life of another, by Right of property in Land or possessions This, of course, would include the man of sovereignty and the men of organisation.Property sets the limit of sovereignty, in that no man has just power over another or anothers property. This right comes directly from God, because it is a God given right that a man should gain property through labor . This overly sets the tone of the role of government, that of servitude instead of command. Locke believed that accomplished society existed to free individuals from the insecurity of the state of nature. He thought that men joined voluntarily in a concert effort of preserving and protecting life, liberty, and estate. Here again we see the importance of property.Government deep down limits can work beneficially for all of man kind. This means that a sovereign would be necessary for the preservation of lives, the onward motion of freedom, and the protection of estate. Locke is quite adamant about the preservation of individual freedom which Aaron describes as need(ing) to be jealously conservesd. This right to the property produced through labor is an inalienable right that each and every individual has. Even the soveriegn has no right to interfere with or take away a mans property. This is the true limit of any man or governing body. Locke lucky a limited monarchy.This is an elected legislative assembly and a monarch that have the power to direct the commonwealth to preserve the community and its members and their rights. Locke believed that people were the absolute sovereign, and that if the appointed sovereign abused his authority the people would have the right to dethaw the government. This right of the people reinforces the limitations of the sovereign, while enforcing the answerability of the sovereign. It is in this sense that the community or the aggregation of individuality, retains power over the sovereign and in essence limits its power.This is the extent of the limitation of authority of the sovereign. The sovereign is a servant of the people, that has limited power only as long as the majority allows it to have power. It was Lockes intent that the state was made for the individual and that the sovereign be used as a protective instrument for the good of the individual. Lockes ideas of property are based on God given rights. Each person has been given a body, with certain abilities and potentials, to use by God. The use of this body is called labor and its return is called property.Since everyone has a body and a level of potential everyone is capable of producing property. The purpose of the sovereign is to protect the individuals right to property and their property. The sovereign is limited in its power and authority and does not have the right to take or interfere with any mans property, since to do so would be an interference with the rights of man as given by God. It was Lockes hope that with such an political orientation behind a people and their government that they might attain and retain Lockes version of the good life, that is life, liberty, and most significantly estate. BibliographyAaron, Richard, John Locke, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1963. Bowie, James, Twenty Questions An Introduction to Philosophy, MacMillan Publishing, unused York, 1964. Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understandi ng, Oxford University Press, London, 1975. Magill, Frank, Masterpieces of World Philosophy, harpist and Row, New York, 1961. OConnor, D. J. , John Locke, Pelican Books, London, 1952. Squadrito, Kathleen, Lockes Theory of Sensitive Knowledge, University Press of America, Washington, 1978. Yolton, J. W. , Locke and the compass of Human Understanding, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.