NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering about the Lockean proviso; that something that is unowned can become owned if it makes no body else worse off.

Specifically I was wondering about the weak version of the proviso; that the existence of private property is to the benefit of all. I accept that private property makes society in general better off; but does it leave no individual worse off? If I acquire an apple tree; you can no longer get any of its apples, no two ways about it.

This makes me think that the initial acquisition of common goods needs to be coordinated and that all goods are acquired simultaneously and distributed according to the Lockean proviso; to avoid the trouble of the Lockean proviso on individual goods. It seems to me that when society forms; the government would have to divide everything equally and threaten to redistribute if ever the Lockean proviso faces violation.

Or am I just going mad?

Or am I just going mad?
Perhaps. Utopian schemes never work because people aren't perfect. In a perfect world, communalism would be the best way to run things at a local level, with a very weak "oversight" government at both national and international levels. ( Note that I said "communalism," not "communism." )

In this imperfect world filled with imperfect people, privately owned property is a necessity to motivate people by harnessing the emotion of greed. Locke was brilliant, but in this case he fell on his face.

I follow that; all that I just wanted to see if people felt that the ownership of the unowned can come about, via the proviso naturally, or does the government have to help bring about a suitable distribution.

So far as I can tell Locke's assumptions about property are not compatable with reality.

No, you're missing part of what Locke said...

According to Locke you gain a right of property over something by putting labour into it. For example, you take property over an apple by the labour of picking it; you gain a right of property over the apple tree through the effort of planting and tending it and you gain property over land through cultivating it. So there is no detriment to other people because the land would have no worth if not for your labour, the apple tree would not exist without your labour and the apple would remain on the tree and uneaten without your labour.

But Locke was just an apologist for Greed and capitalism.

So far as I can tell Locke's assumptions about property are not compatable with reality.
Particularly if you consider that Locke himself was quite a happy slave trader.
So I guess "can become property if nobody is being made worse off" is something of a conditional statement - it depends on who you consider to be worthy of "personhood".

No, you're missing part of what Locke said...

According to Locke you gain a right of property over something by putting labour into it. For example, you take property over an apple by the labour of picking it; you gain a right of property over the apple tree through the effort of planting and tending it and you gain property over land through cultivating it. So there is no detriment to other people because the land would have no worth if not for your labour, the apple tree would not exist without your labour and the apple would remain on the tree and uneaten without your labour.

But Locke was just an apologist for Greed and capitalism.

If you hadn't of planted and tended the apple tree, claiming ownship, then I would have been able to plant and tend to the tree. Thus I am deprived of the tree. Certainly if no one else was planning to tend to the tree; your correct, but that is hard too prove.

Furthermore it is diffcult to argue that there would have been no land if I didn't farm on it.

If you hadn't of planted and tended the apple tree, claiming ownship, then I would have been able to plant and tend to the tree. Thus I am deprived of the tree. Certainly if no one else was planning to tend to the tree; your correct, but that is hard too prove.

Furthermore it is diffcult to argue that there would have been no land if I didn't farm on it.

I didn't say I agreed with Locke, but in any case you're missing the point.

I picked and ate the apple, and planted the pips to grow the seed. You could have done the same with another apple to grow another tree. But you didn't. Since I put my labour into this one, it is my tree.

And I didn't say that there wouldn't have been any land. The point is that without me having put my labour into it, it would have been unproductive and useless. Since I put my labour into it, it is now my land.

And then people agreed to enter into the 'Social Contract' to safeguard property so gained. Thus, we are stuck with the system of property as it is today.

So says Locke, and again, just to make sure we all get this, I don't agree with him....but it always helps to understand a theory before you argue against it.