• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13

How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'The great and chief end... of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the preservation of their property' (Second treatise, para.124). How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property? Locke says that the state has a responsibility to preserve people's private property. He (1688) says "The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into common-wealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property" (p. 262). The state has to set laws which establish the rights of the people to own property. It has to have judges to decide between disputes. And it has to have people to execute the law once it's passed. The reason why people join a society is to get this particular protection for their property, or else they would have remained in a state of nature. For the same reason they have to protect it they can't take it away as well. Since people join a society to preserve their property not to have it taken away. If the state would have the right to take it away it would be as if they wouldn't have any property at all. Since, Locke (1688) says, "I have truly no property in that, which another can by right take from me, when he pleases, against my consent" (p. 266). People would be a lot better off living in a state of nature where at least, they have a right to try to defend themselves when someone tried to take their property. They would never willingly agree for the state to have the right to take their property whenever they pleased. In order for Locke to come up with his opinions of the role of state in regarding property he assumed a number of things including people have a right to their own preservation, the way to acquire property is through labor in the land, and that land is better acquired than lying not toiled in the common. Locke (1688) ...read more.

Middle

I cannot arrive at how he would react to this. On one hand, Locke may approve of this because some amount of work is still involved: investors must research their moves, as well as work to make the money in the first place. On the other hand, Locke may disdain this because making money from money seems to go away from the way God intended the gift of the earth's resources to be. When one tries to decide whether Locke was misguided in trying to account for all the legitimate functions of government in terms of "the preservation of property", it is important to qualify the statement by deciding what exactly Locke meant as property in the first place. Locke states that "every Man has a property in his own Persons", this is a difficult notion to grasp given our own modern definition of property. Our "persons" are certainly not a property in the sense of being something we could see to someone else, and the right to trade away or alienate something is certainly a major part of the modern meaning of the notion of property. However, the word 'property' in the seventeenth century was often used more widely to denote any rights of a fundamental kind, and fundamental rights were often claimed to be inalienable. For Locke therefore, human beings are primarily centres of rights and duties (rather than, as with Hobbes, centres of appetites). The right and duty or 'property' of humanity requires, first and foremost, our survival. However, Locke is also at pains to state that once "our own Preservation comes not into competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of Mankind." The extent to which I may exercise my political liberty to ensure my own survival therefore, is constrained to the ability to which you may exercise yours. Locke proposes that one must derive our political power as this is the "state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature." ...read more.

Conclusion

Even the soveriegn has no right to interfere with or take away a man's property. This is the true limit of any man or governing body. Locke favored a limited monarchy. This is an elected legislative assembly and a monarch that have the power to direct the commonwealth to preserve the community and it's members and their rights. Locke believed that people were the absolute sovereign, and that if the appointed sovereign abused his authority the people would have the right to dissolve the government. This right of the people reinforces the limitations of the sovereign, while enforcing the accountability of the sovereign. It is in this sense that the community or the aggregation of individuality, retains power over the sovereign and in essence limits it's power. This is the extent of the limitation of authority of the sovereign. The sovereign is a servant of the people, that has limited power only as long as the majority allows it to have power. It was Locke's intent that the state was made for the individual and that the sovereign be used as a protective instrument for the good of the individual. Locke's ideas of property are based on God given rights. Each person has been given a body, with certain abilities and potentials, to use by God. The use of this body is called labor and its product is called property. Since everyone has a body and a level of potential everyone is capable of producing property. The purpose of the sovereign is to protect the individuals right to property and their property. The sovereign is limited in it's power and authority and does not have the right to take or interfere with any man's property, since to do so would be an interference with the right's of man as given by God. It was Locke's hope that with such an ideology behind a people and their government that they might attain and retain Locke's version of the good life, that is life, liberty, and most importantly estate. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. Power and Politics in Organizations: Public and Private Sector Comparisons

    of the organization itself. This tendency is ubiquitous in the political sphere. Cooper (1975) nicely summed it up in his observation on the U.S. Congress: He found that institution 'quite vulnerable to the deleterious effects the pursuit of residual goals [of its members] involves.

  2. The development of fascist doctrine.

    We do know, for example, that for some time Mussolini was influenced by philosophical individualism and its implicit anarchism. He himself indicates that until 1908 he remained under the influence of Nietzsche and Max Stirner. Under their influence he seemed prepared to maintain that the individual enjoyed some kind of moral privilege vis-�-vis any organized aggregate of men.

  1. Is New Labour either?

    1997, Blair confirmed the traditional Labour attitude towards nuclear weapons and demanded their elimination. In his opinion about the role of Britain in the European Union, he fell into line with Kinnock and is promising a 'new leadership from Britain to reform Europe'30.

  2. The study of international or rather global politics, seeks to provide an account of ...

    - are spending the most money, labour and efforts in pursuit of what decision-makers deem to be national security interests (Duetsch 98). Deutsch (98) further explains that, "a nation's feeling of insecurity expands directly in relation to its power. The larger and more powerful a nation is, the more its

  1. Examine the history of and different types of Anarchism

    Like Marx, Stirner was influenced by Hegel. For Stirner, the individual self should be placed at the centre of the moral universe. People should simply act as they choose, unrestrained by laws, social conventions or religious or moral principles. Egoism is related to nihilism, atheism and existentialism.

  2. Assess the claim that there are no such things as natural rights.

    It can be argued that some societies do not recognise human rights and therefore because they are not recognised they cannot be natural. The idea that our rights are natural means that they exist pre society and therefore in an ideal world, they ought to be recognised and respected by all.

  1. Compare Hobbes and Locke's views on the obligation to obey the law.

    a moral reason to do so the latter is political obligation. So although Hobbes (1) defines one as having an obligation to the sovereign by virtue of having made a valid covenant to obey him and (2) gives an argument for why fulfilling such ?obligations? is required by instrumental

  2. Singapores founding fathers contributed most to its economy. Do you agree? Explain your argument.

    This stabilise the home market as products would be more affordable. During that period, labour force was also suffering from a low standard of welfare. Some of the workers were literally starving to death. Such labour force did not have high effectiveness in working, losing its competitiveness.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work