justification of the ownership of properties by private individuals

justification of the ownership of properties by private individuals

Yes, I think lock Locke provides enough justification for the unequal distribution of private property. In his work on the theory of properties founded in the second treaty of governments. Locke’s attempt to entrench the right to property in the natural law was an essential device for asserting the rights of an individual to own property against the governing authorities. Also, his effort to assert the rights to own property on natural rights was crucial in limiting the moral power of the state is an essential area of human rights.

This elaboration of the essay is subdivided into two sections. The first part is the justification of the ownership of properties by private individuals, and the second part is the evaluation of the first part. When explain, I will stick to the times of Locke and his situations than in the seventeenth century while explaining I will insert some perspectives of contemporary times and some different critiques. In the essay, I will touch on Locke’s theory of property, The meanings of labor, limitations, and critiques on the method, the responsibility of the government, and the analysis.

Aaron, in his work in the nineteen fifty-five, asserts that Locke had accepted the customs of communism in the ideas of medieval. In unstructured forms in which it was handed into him in the years of the seventeenth century; In the state of nature following Locke’s, all men were born free and equal. And although this was a state of freedom and liberty, it was not a state of license Because it was overruled by nature, which everyone was compelled to obey. Lock placed the right to property ownership in the same platform as the rights of health, life, and liberty.

According to Locke, God had granted all humanity all things in common, and the man was to use them for his freedom and convenience. Though to use the things God had given to all, one has to possess them, and one has to possess them individually and not communally. The concepts of Locke never stated that men possess all things in stock in a definite form. Lock argues that God gave the world in common to all human beings. Still, since the intention was that men would use the world for their excellent, satisfactions, and conveniences, it, therefore, cannot be that the land was supposed to remain common and uncultivated. According to Locke, the only part of the property which was supposed to stay common was the uncultivated one. Any piece of land which was taken and cultivated had changed ownership from common to individual. The portion of land which was developed now belonged to the individual who had worked on it. In this argument, Locke was able to justify the perspective of private property, the right private property, which he asserted was valuable in human life, and it belonged to a man as a natural right.

Locke starts his argument by pointing out one form of property against which no other individual could ever have any claim even though we are in a world of political equality. He talks of a property that each person possesses individually in absoluteness. In his labor theory of property, Locke discusses how one gets a right to completely own a farm as a result of their labor. Locke uses the term labor to symbolize the actions by which men can create a property. Labor, according to Locke, includes activities such as gathering apples from wild trees, catching a fish in the ocean, tracking a deer in the forest, and Picking up corns from the ground. According to Lock, labor varies from simple activities of appropriating to complex activities involving a high level of effort and planning. Therefore it is labor that creates private property and gives value to majority of things. It is labor that makes one thing more valuable than the other. It is labor that makes one item useful to human life and the other stuff of no usefulness.

Further, Locke states that of the products in the earth useful to human life, nine-tenths are helpful because of the labor effects on them. Locke argues that private property was moral ownership as any property in nature upon which no labor is used provides little usefulness to mankind. Here Lock provides labor theory of value as a good defense for the private property. This is because the one-tenth of all the products on the earth can be attributed to labor, and only one-tenth can be attributed to nature itself. An individual’s work is necessarily their own and should be the products of their job. In Locke’s definition of property, he does not include physical features alone, but also he includes intangible goods such as the right to liberty and life. He uses the property in the broad sense as an all-encompassing word, including life and all other material possessions as well.

Furthermore, the rights to the property include the fruits of the earth and the earth itself. From the start, the land and all its components were held in common by all the men. The only this that each person had as their own properties were their own self and the labor of their own hands, and all the works of their own body. But also, also, a person could own anything else with which they would mix with the labor of their own hands. Whatever a man could change from the form, nature handed it in through the use of their work that they could make their property. Locke gets the right to private property concepts from the power of self-preservation every individual has.

When an individual, through their effort, changes a thing from the form in which nature presented it, that particular situation changes from being a common item to become the property of him who used their labor to change the state of the property. To make his argument secure Lock uses an analogy of water running through in the fountain and say’s that that water is everyone’s resource, but if one fetches that water and takes it to their home, then carried water becomes that man’s property. Also, Lock argues that to say a property is a man’s property means that the man who owns the property can do anything they wish with the property. This includes making a gift of it, and also bequeathing it to any person they want likes in the owner’s death. Labor being an absolute property of the laborer, then no other person has right to what it produces. This mostly applies to the minimum where there is enough of the natural resources, which is as good left for everyone to tap from. The right of ownership of one person’s implications to others should not destroy their chances to produce similar kinds of property for themselves equally.

Moreover, Locke argues that the right of individual property ownership is a right assigned by the laws of nature. The power requires no government to enforce it; neither can any government institution take it away. Though it is a free right applicable to all individuals equally, Locke puts three limitations to the application of the theory. The first restriction to the argument is that as much as a man can own as much as they want the property, Lock says that it was useful for a man to appropriate as much property as they can use before it spoils or goes wrong. One should use as much as they would want to use for their advantage in life; the edge of comfort before it goes bad. Beyond this, the concepts of the theory may be misused, for God created nothing for the man to destroy or spoil. The second restriction that Lock states are that one can only take from the common stock of properties as long as there is enough stock, which is as good left in the common stock for the others. However, Laslett argues that more than enough limitation can be escaped through the use of money. The surplus properties which can go bad then are exchanged with money, which cannot go wrong if in oversupply. He argues because of the use of money, then there is no need to be any limitation to the property acquisition. This would be important because, with increased productivity of resources brought about by zero restriction, even those who would have no opportunity to acquire land would have a chance to learn the necessities of life.

The third limitation is one which, according to Macpherson, Lock did not express directly. Though Lock appeared to state that one can only personally own property for which they labored. Lock seems to be saying this when he directly links the private property to labor. He seemed opposed to the idea of using other people’s work to create wealth the concept of capitalism. He states that when we mix what we own with what we do not own, why should we think we gain property instead of losing the right to it. Further, in stressing the concept of property ownership, he states that the governments have no right to take property goods to use with the agreement with the property owner.

To overcome the challenge of property spoilage and to increase the safety of personal property and to reduce the disputes in private property ownership, all men require to come together in agreements and form governments. The role of the government would be to ensure the protection of individual’s rights to own properties. Also, men can decide to form civil societies; the work of the public organizations would be one of arbitration and agitation for the rights of individuals to own properties. The property protected by governments includes life, physical properties, and liberty. By agreeing to give up the right to be the judges in their cases of property, every individual in the society increases the goods of orderliness in the community and also the benefits of increased security in the nation. Hence Lock argues that the existence of private ownership of property is the primary reason that states exist. The government formed is supposed to reign for the good of the public and not for their own self-right. Should, in any case, the government fails to meet the sound of the citizens, the citizens have the right to change one government for another. Locke’s idea of the government can be interpreted as one of a government is an institution that has limited governance in the country, where the government is set of up for a simple task of ensuring minimum order that helps men to be able to pursue private growth of properties. The government should be undisturbed by inequalities in the accumulation of individual properties by the citizens.

Also, Locke defends private property ownership because he argues that as an individual, we have to do what is necessary for our survival. In the survival concepts locks means that as individual we have to do what is right to be able to meet the basics necessities of life. The basic requirements of food, water, and shelter, fit means that for the individuals to survive, they require to own private properties, then the ownership of property should be the authorized requirement.  According to Locke, the right to private property is a requirement necessary for our survival. And so, according to Locke, we have a right to change what is a common property into an individually owned property.

The downside of Locke’s provision on changing as much of possible of the publicly owned resources into a publicly owned resource is that it brings about the aspects of economic inequality in a country. The elements of economic inequality because of the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor in society. Regardless Locke argues that the difference between the worse off in, the better off in instances where there is individual ownership of property would be better off than the one that would be there if there was common ownership of property. Among the negative responses to Locke’s ideas of privately-owned economic resources is one that adjoined him to drop the plans of resources that are enough. For the egalitarian choice for Michel Otsuka, egalitarian libertarianism has no inequalities.

Further, according to Locke, there are five primary precepts that drive the survival and need of man to privately own property. The rules are self-preservation precepts. In this concept, man wants to own their own resources so that they can continue to live; the resources include items such as food and water. Also, Locke proposed that man wants to privately own property for the continuation of the species through reproduction. Reproduction of the man species is not possible unless man has resources to take care of the young ones using available resources.

Further, Locke stated that man wants to privately own property so that they can educate children. The education of children is essential for men because of the fulfillment of the purposes of civilization. Also, the man wanted to privately own property so that they would be able to live in society and worship God. The worship of God was essential to man for their spiritual nourishment.

In the concepts of the distributions of property, Locke was more inclined to oversimplify; he was for the idea that the distribution of wealth was smooth and entirely controlled by the forces of nature. He thought that the practice of human ingenuity and different organization structures was not required. Locke did not factor in the ideas that in the day’s like today, no property is not taken through a sanction of the established order. Someone does not own no property, and so a man can die of lack of food before they can reach any unappropriated property which hero she can labor to make their own. In the concepts of economics and politics, Locke was a firm believer in the principles which were in line with Laissez-faire ideas. The ideas that the distribution of properties functions in the optimum when there is no interference from the government; the principles are among the kind key of the free market in the modern world.

As Morris says, Locke’s ideas have been used to develop solutions in today’s world complexities. Locke’s theory on the ownership of private property has been able to fully establish the principles upon which lies the bottom line science of individual wealth making. Although decades passed before, the laws of Locke’s could be implemented widely in the world. His principles can be traced to modern-day economies. The policies now, since the writings and times of Karl Marx has assumed increased importance and are at the center of socialistic theory.

In conclusion, Lockes principles for private property ownership have significantly featured in the writings of the philosopher who came after him, such as Thomas Jefferson John Mill, who have also written arguments that have placed an individual rights to own property over the power of the state. Put the country as an agency that works to protect personal property rights and also promoting the concepts of freedom of doing business. The ideas of Locke, together with the views of the philosophers that followed, went on to put a  ground upon which capitalism is justified in contemporary society.

Locke affirmed the liberal theme of self-ownership of property according to His precepts; each person is the owner of themselves and, as a result, enjoys the right and authority to over their use of powers. And thus, through the labor of their body, they can be able to own property from a common stock privately. Locke defended the ideas of privately owned property by use of the survival argument. In the survival argument, Locke said that we have the right to do what is necessary for our survival as human beings. Also, he stated that a right to private ownership is essential for the basic survival of the human species. And finally, he defended the right of property ownership by saying that we have the right to change and transform that which is privately owned into that which is privately owned.