About Excess and Waste of Property - Walsh Kern

By

 These chapters on property, consent, and government were striking to read as they are so foundational to the government that I have lived under. As I read, I thought a lot of the start of American government. Not only did the reading inspire me to think about the past, I also thought about how Locke's writing has implications on property and government today.

Locke raises an objection to his assertion that property can be obtained by taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in through labor, without the consent of any body. The objection, which addressed a worry that I generated, was that a man could ingross as much as he will, and take more than his share. To this objection, Locke says that God has given us all things to the extent that we can enjoy them. And whatever is beyond that is more than his share, for God did not make anything for men to spoil or destroy. Additionally, with land, water, etc. there needs to be enough left over for all. You can't take so much that there is not enough. Although this is a well-reasoned response to this objection, it still leaves me with questions about how property should be policed. In today's world, there are billions of people and incredible disparities in what people residing under a common government own. Locke mentions how the creation of money was essential to people making more than what they themselves need so that they can acquire other goods without having excessive goods spoil without use. Just because the money in own's bank account isn't actually perishing or spoiling, this doesn't mean it is not more than a person can enjoy.

I really wonder what Locke would have to say about policing property and what should be done if someone has more than they could enjoy. He clearly holds the preservation of private property as the entire chief end of government, but it is not so clear what should happen if one has too much property and importantly, when someone reach the point of having too much. By his description, I find it clear that there are those today that own property far beyond the point of being able to enjoy it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more