Locke Flashcards
What is the basis for legitimate appropriation according to Locke?
- Every man has a property in his own person.
- Locke move from owning ourselves to the closely connected idea that we own our own labour, and from that to the further claim that whatever we mix our labour with that is unowned becomes our property.
- This is because labour is the unquestionable property of the labourer and therefore no-one but the labourer can have a right in what is joined to or mixed with that labour, at least where there is enough and as good left in common for others.
Why is private property more efficient in the use of resources than common property?
- There must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial, to any particular men.
- Unassisted nature (i.e empty field) provides very little use to mankind. It is through labour that nature’s resources become useful to us.
- Locke thinks 99 out of 100 useful things to men are the product of man’s labour.
Why does Locke introduce limits to the use of private property?
- People do not have the right to take more than they can use as “Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy.”
- If everyone limits themselves to what they can reasonably use, in the original state of nature there’ll be plenty to go around
- As long as nothing spoils in one’s possession, it doesn’t matter how much property anyone owns, so once money comes around, property accumulation is justified since it won’t involve spoilage.
- Lockean proviso= “enough and as good left in common for others”- one’s right to property is only clear and exclusive so long as it doesn’t jeopardize anyone else’s ability to create equivalent kinds of property for himself
Who is Jeremy Waldron?
He is one of the world’s leading legal and political philosophers. He has written extensively on the analysis and justification of private property and on the political and legal philosophy of John Locke.
What is the Lockean proviso?
- The property right created by exerting labour IS NOT VALID unless “enough and as good” is left in Common for others.
- Nozick limits Lockean proviso to an “all things considered” enquiry that looks at whether individuals are better off in general with property rights existing rather than better off with a specific instance of property appropriation- not a faithful reading of Locke
Why is labour the origin of private property according to Locke? Do you find any contradictions in his argument?
- Because a man owns himself, and therefore his own labour, he also owns the fruits of his own labour.
- ## When an individual adds their own labor to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labor and since no-one else can own their labour, it is theirs.
What role does law play in the creation of modern private property rights for Locke?
- For Locke the law of nature persists once government arrives and he insists on limited government, limited by the end for which it was created, the preservation of property.
- Nevertheless, there’s an important sense that what counts as my property, and what counts as respecting my life and liberty are for the government to define.
- That there be property and respect for life and liberty is what limits government, but what counts as respecting my life and respecting my property is for governments to decide and to define.
- Is Locke contradicting himself or is there an important distinction here?
Is Locke an ally of the libertarian movement? Arguments for.
- Locke believes there are certain fundamental individual rights so important that no government, even a representative, democratically-elected one can override them, and these include life, liberty and property.
Is slavery or suicide compatible with Locke’s theory of self-ownership?
- No, Locke’s entire system of natural rights is based on the fact that life, liberty and property are unalienable, and so a man is not free to enslave himself.
- Because he is God’s property, a man has no rightful power over his own life and commits a trespass if he tries to kill or enslave himself
- Locke does not say or require in his theory of appropriation that we should have prope rty rights in our bodies. Person’ in Locke’s philosophy is a technical term and, in the account of personal identity in the Essay is given a meaning quite distinct from ‘man’ or ‘body’
What is Locke’s theory of self-ownership?
everyman has a property in his own Person. This no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men
Is Locke an ally of the libertarian movement? Arguments against.
The idea rights are unalienable distances Locke from the libertarians. He says if we take natural rights seriously, we’ll accept there’s constraints (either given by God or by reason), and that those constraints are that we cannot give our rights away, or take rights away from another.
Lockean state of nature?
- Locke believes the state of nature is a state of liberty, human beings are free and equal beings, there is no hierarchy, its not the case that some people are born to be kings and some are born to be serfs. We are free and equal in the state of nature.
- State of nature IS NOT a state of licence (excessive freedom). Even in the state of nature, there’s a law of nature, the natural rights we have cannot be given up, nor can we take the natural rights from someone else.
Where does Locke think natural rights come from?
- Locke says natural rights comes from God (and are strictly his so can’t be given away), he also argues that if it didn’t come from God, then it would be deduced rationally, as liberty needs some constraints.
- Natural rights are unalienable.
Lockean natural rights?
- Come from God or can be deduced rationally.
- Locke says natural rights are unalienable, we own them in the limited sense we can use them for ourselves and can’t give them up, or sell them.
Does natural rights being unalienable strengthen or weaken them?
- In some sense unalienable rights are less mine as i’m not free to dispose of them, but in some senses they are also more profoundly mine, as even we can’t trade them away.
