I take the following as a preliminary list of how Locke thinks property acquisition is naturally limited by the same principles that justify it:
1. "Enough and as good" clause
2. Spoilage proviso
3. Rational purpose (need fulfillment for enjoyment of life)
4. Charity (an entitlement of the needy, not merely a duty of the comfortable)
In respect of this last restriction, here is a passage from the First Treatise (I, 42): "God, the Lord and Father of all, has given no one of his Children such a property, in his peculiar portion of the things of this World, but that he has given his needy Brother a Right to the surplusage of his Goods, so that it cannot be justly denied him, when his pressing Wants call for it...As Justice gives every Man a Title to the product of his honest Industry...so Charity gives every man a Title to so much out of another's Plenty, as will keep him from extream want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise."
As before, we will want to see whether such an entitlement has a credible secular parallel to justify it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/03/tech/main6169636.shtml
what would locke say about rocks that fall from outer space? haha i think locke would say that the meteor belongs to the landlord but must repair the damages. prima facie i think we could see the meteor belonging to the Smithsonian because they would get the most use of the rock, perhaps with retribution to the landlord and doctor whose office it was
I think it is interesting that the restriction of charity, to my understanding, is not present in the section on property in Locke's Second Treatise. I would think that such an important aspect of property would have been present in a section devoted entirely to the definition of property.
You might well think this, but notice that the "Life, Liberty, and Estate" formulation also occurs elsewhere (II, 123, I think). Locke is not a systematic writer, but more of a conversational one. This relaxed style has its merits -- of all the philosophers of the 17th and 18th century, he's the most appealingly readable -- and still one of the most widely read. One could sometimes wish for a more systematic presentation, however...
Regarding the ownership of meteorites, there was a story about that in the papers just last week. You might have seen it. It fell into a doctor's office, and the physician and landlord are disputing its ownership (since it's worth perhaps $5,000 to the Smithsonian, and possibly ten times that on the open market). Personally, if a meteorite fell on my property I would keep it, but loan it out to museums for viewing. My intuition is that I would both be entitled to it in some sense, and also that I owed it to the community to share.
The Outer Space Treaty, which was eventually ratified by 62 countries. According to article II of the treaty, "Outer Space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means”. And the 1979 U.N. Moon agreement says lunar resources are a common heritage to all humankind. Though these apply to the Moon, I think the idea that anything from space (that is not previously owned) belongs to humankind makes sense. If a property owner has claim to a meteorite (which they indeed do) there is no guarantee that they will loan it out. A property owner might be “entitled to it in some sense”, but I would add a stipulation that it must be placed permanently on loan for museum viewing; rather than leave that decision at the discretion of a property owner.
When we use money to make more money, as in stocks and bonds for instance: is this considered a benefit of labor? Our initial labor that earned us our initial investment keeps earning money. How would Locke classify this type of earning? We might say that a stockbroker works hard trading stocks, (?) but what might Locke think of an investor who simply hands money over to hopefully earn more?
I think that Locke would consider the purchase of stocks and bonds to be a beneficial pratice. I think that it is misleading to represent the purchase of stocks and bonds as someone simply "handing over money in the hopes of earning more." One would buy a stock or bond presumably with some amount of money that he or she does not need at the moment, to some organization that could use the money immediately. I believe Locke would view this exchange as a more efficient use of resources, and would therefore be supportive of it, as long as people did not abuse the Lockean limits in the process.
I don't see a lot of evidence in the text that Locke thinks such investment is a good thing, or the opposite. What is clear is that he thinks once the natural restrictions are met or overcome, your estate is yours to do with as you please within reason.
But what and how much such investment activity is reasonable? Bretticus' idea of sharing unneeded resources could in principle be healthy, and even necessary in a trade or industrial economy. It could also get out of control, however, and one can imagine a fierce Lockean critique of a financial sector which starts to wag the dog of the real economy (the one that makes useful stuff).
Post a Comment