Examination of Property
Locke – Reflective Post
For this post, I would like to discuss Locke’s whole foundation of property. For Locke, a person can properly remove things through nature as long as it does not go to waste. Locke asks: “But how far has [God] given it us” (paragraph 31)? To which he replies “To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils; so much he may by his labor fix a Property in. Whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy” (par. 31). “…And the ground which produces the materials, is scarce to be reckon’d in, as any, or at most, but a very small, part of it; so little, that even amongst us, Land that is left wholly to Nature, that hath no improvement of Pasturage, Tillage, or Planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste; and we shall find the benefit of it amount to little more than nothing” (par 42). So in essence, Locke believes that any land that is not being used for mans gain is wasteful.
Locke then describes the introduction of money into the equation, that of things we can hoard, as much as we like that would not go to waste. “Again, if he would give his Nuts for a piece of Metal, pleased with its colour; or exchange his Sheep for Shells, or Wool for a sparkling Pebble or a Diamond, and keep those by him all his Life, he invaded not the Right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just Property not lying in the largeness of his Possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it” (par. 46).
The question I pose is, does concept of money and property have legitimacy, especially in an era when man recognizes the limit of resources? Locke speaks quite freely about the hoarding of your labor into such durable minerals but when examined closer, the mining of these materials wastes the land that they are mined from and lays wreckage to whole communities and villages. The process of gaining the durable items to trade with is in fact wasteful. It is destroying the environment so that it will no longer be useful to man after it is ravaged for “that little piece of yellow metal.” Does Locke not say that: “He was only to look that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more then his share, and robb’d others” (par.46). From this observation, I gather that Locke’s conception of property no longer can be deemed as legitimate. Man needs to reverse his use of land for the acquisition of property and instead leave and create untouched lands that can be wholly left to nature. Only then can man have an environment to which their property can continue to be protected.
For this post, I would like to discuss Locke’s whole foundation of property. For Locke, a person can properly remove things through nature as long as it does not go to waste. Locke asks: “But how far has [God] given it us” (paragraph 31)? To which he replies “To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils; so much he may by his labor fix a Property in. Whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy” (par. 31). “…And the ground which produces the materials, is scarce to be reckon’d in, as any, or at most, but a very small, part of it; so little, that even amongst us, Land that is left wholly to Nature, that hath no improvement of Pasturage, Tillage, or Planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste; and we shall find the benefit of it amount to little more than nothing” (par 42). So in essence, Locke believes that any land that is not being used for mans gain is wasteful.
Locke then describes the introduction of money into the equation, that of things we can hoard, as much as we like that would not go to waste. “Again, if he would give his Nuts for a piece of Metal, pleased with its colour; or exchange his Sheep for Shells, or Wool for a sparkling Pebble or a Diamond, and keep those by him all his Life, he invaded not the Right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just Property not lying in the largeness of his Possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it” (par. 46).
The question I pose is, does concept of money and property have legitimacy, especially in an era when man recognizes the limit of resources? Locke speaks quite freely about the hoarding of your labor into such durable minerals but when examined closer, the mining of these materials wastes the land that they are mined from and lays wreckage to whole communities and villages. The process of gaining the durable items to trade with is in fact wasteful. It is destroying the environment so that it will no longer be useful to man after it is ravaged for “that little piece of yellow metal.” Does Locke not say that: “He was only to look that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more then his share, and robb’d others” (par.46). From this observation, I gather that Locke’s conception of property no longer can be deemed as legitimate. Man needs to reverse his use of land for the acquisition of property and instead leave and create untouched lands that can be wholly left to nature. Only then can man have an environment to which their property can continue to be protected.
posted by Holly at 4:50 PM
<< Home