Agricultural Resource Governance And Land Tenure

The role of the modern state is to ensure social stability to citizens. Which consist of avoiding any kind of civil unrest. In this respect, the current thinking of T. Hobbes, the Leviathan (state) is to guarantee individual freedom. The head of the Leviathan is the sovereign, which only embody who the real state is, the citizens. Why does a state need a governor? Why should the government put rules? What duty does a citizen owe to the government that secures the society in which he lives? In this case, I will support my arguments with: The Prince, Leviathan, The Death of Socrates and Panama’s Constitution of 1972 with Amendments through 2004.

Karl Marx on the other hand, has a wildly different opinion on property. In his most famous piece, The Communist Manisfesto, Marx’s opinion is set up in one line; "… the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property” (Marx in Cahn 885). Marx firmly believed that ownership of private property was a way in which the social classes became more divided, and in turn, a way to oppress the poor. His opinion largely stems from the time period in which he lived (1818-1883), where factory owners infamously underpaid employees for dangerous work in treacherous conditions. However, Marx idea of private property was a bit different from Locke and did not mean things like land ownership or personal items, but the relation of individuals used for the means of production in a privately owned enterprise. Marx points out however, that in this state, unlike the ideas and time of Locke (1632-1704), the laborers do not benefit or acquire any property from their labor. In fact, the capital they are producing is the “kind of property that exploits wage labor” (Marx in Cahn 886) and serves to oppress them and further the division of classes. Therefore, Marx aimed to take this “private property” and give it to the Proletariats in order to change its status from the elite ownership of the Bourgeoisie, to the

English philosopher John Locke and German philosopher Karl Marx seem completely opposed in their views of private property. While Locke believes that private property is a natural right, Marx believes that private property should be abolished. Throughout this paper, Locke’s and Marx’s individual philosophies on private property will be presented and examined. Ultimately, this paper seeks to show the similarities between these thinkers’ viewpoints on private property and demonstrate that Marx’s philosophies have some roots in Locke’s. Moreover, this paper will examine how these philosophies affected the course of social, economic, and civilizational process.

Initially, Thomas Hobbes introduces a concept on the state of nature and its effects as well as how peace can be achieved. In Leviathan, Hobbes defines what living in a state of nature would be like and the three causes of fights. He recognizes that without fundamentals of law humanity would be corrupted and horrible, as he established that competition, diffidence, and glory are the reasons for disturbances in nature. According to Hobbes in order to maintain peace and safety there must be a powerful central government. Either a man or an assembly of men would have absolute power over every individual. He believed in a monarchy, such as dictatorship. He believed in Commonwealth, which is a single person who withholds all the sovereign power and he may use this

In times of uncertainty, Jaques Bossuet and Thomas Hobbes were able to contribute their ideologies and beliefs surrounding legitimate political rules as well as the responsibilities of the sovereign and its citizens to shine a light on a time that we would otherwise have very little knowledge on today. In Jaques Bossuet 's written work titled, On the Natures and the Properties of Royal Authority, he shares his experiences and personal views regarding the correlation between the higher power of God and the rulers of the sovereign. Thomas Hobbes in his famed written work, Leviathan, on the other hand, shares his own unique doctrine which allows us to see the important relationship between the rationale of man and the sovereign. While Bossuet was a Bishop and Hobbes was a philosopher, their independent and credible experiences were able to develop fascinating points and ideas that allow us to look back and learn about the times at hand. Their respective works are still widely spread and circulated across the globe which allows for a deeper and more critical understanding of their work. Jaques Bossuet and Thomas Hobbes share their respective philosophies that at first glance are quite different, with no apparent similarities coming to light. However after deep analysis of both texts, the connection of their empirical knowledge becomes more and more evident and is able to be more critically evaluated. While neither Bossuet or Hobbes provides an ideal form of rule, one can’t help

Opening with the famous statement “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” is Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ The Communist Manifesto. Published in 1848, the political pamphlet exercised the belief that communism would dispel capitalism and perpetual class struggles caused by the bourgeoisie, which had remained unchanged as modes of production evolved. Stemming from its origin “common,” communism proposes the idea of a post-capitalist, classless society where its property is publicly owned and its means of production provide a stable economic base for all. The proposition of this strategy is outlined throughout The Communist Manifesto, starting with the criticism of the relationship between the

Powerful international corporations and foreign investors often buy land off of countries in Africa and South America to repurpose and use as farmland for cash crops, factories, or biofuel production. These sales are made possible by the chief executives of these countries who are all too willing to give up chunks of land for sums of money offered by these rich corporations and investors. However, with these deals come some major issues. On top of the replacement of small subsistence farmlands by large-scale cash crop farms or businesses, the rights of locals in the areas being bought and sold are often neglected and these people face injustices and mistreatment by these deals and corporations.

To understand the arguments and theories of Karl Marx in “The Communist Manifesto”, one must know the difference between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Due to the discovery of new land and the opening of markets, the bourgeoisie arose and with it the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is made up of business/property owners and the proletariat is made up of the working class, who work for the bourgeoisie. With the means of producing goods, the bourgeoisie led society into a new era in which goods were being mass-produced and relations were strictly

Property is a vague term people use to distinguish what belongs to them and what belongs to others. There is no easy answer to how people come to have ownership, but people do believe they are owed property. There are two different types of property to be evaluated: private and public. The benefits and harms of these types of property and their roles in a society have been widely debated. John Locke and Karl Marx have, what appear to be, vastly different stances on these debates. John Locke believes the government has the obligation to protect individual, private property and Karl Marx is a strong supporter of the government ensuring public property in order to eliminate the class system, but both would agree on what constitutes property and

The source which will be analysed is the frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes most famous work ‘Leviathan’ and ‘Leviathan’ as a whole. The frontispiece is considered as prominent as the arguments put forth by Thomas Hobbes in the ‘Leviathan’ itself. The frontispiece depicts a crowned figure grasping a crosier and a sword. This figure, or ‘Leviathan’, represents the all-powerful, comprehensive state. When looked at closely, the torso and arms of the figure are made up of hundreds of individual people, who are all looking up at the head of the ‘Leviathan’, which represents the sovereign. Hobbes uses this image to argue that the sovereign rules in accordance with its subjects giving approval or permission on something and not just through the sovereign’s divine right to rule. Hobbes’s powerful image, like Hobbes’s principles can be considered a paradox; the state represented as a democratic autocracy. The arguments presented by Hobbes in Leviathan were met by a sea of opposition, which in turn led Hobbes to be caught up in more controversy than any writer before his time, which lasted throughout his entire life. Surprisingly, ‘Leviathan’ demonstrated no distinct bias from Hobbes in support of monarchical rule, just Hobbes strong support for autarchy or absolutism. The ‘Leviathan’ also highlighted support towards the Puritan regime, which was led by Oliver Cromwell, as Hobbes argued that the freedom of each citizen is in fact obtained by the commonwealth . Hobbes returned to England

German philosopher and socialist Karl Marx once famously said, “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.” In other words, no one owns any private property and everyone receive equal shares of the benefits that they labored for. Class divisions do not exist anymore as everyone is equal, at least in theory. Karl Marx’s theory of communism popularized into a practice that forever altered the world. Even though Marx's idea of communal property sounds appealing, the main communist theory is rotten at its core and resulted in a terrorizing practice.

In the collective culmination of the state of nature, individuals in society create a different state; that is, “a legal entity that possesses a permanent population, a well-defined territory and a government capable of exercising sovereignty” (Kegley & Raymond 2005, p. 47). The state, often used interchangeably with the terms ‘nation’ or ‘nation-state’, is the most important actor in the Realist international system. Possessing no superior authority (sovereignty), the respective states of the world interact in a condition of anarchy. With this provision, the state is unrestrained by the ‘social contract’ imposed on individuals at a domestic level. Thus, the actions taken

Hobbes’ Leviathan critically analyzes possible forms of government in context of the inherent character of man. Hobbes’ proposal of the ideal government is undoubtedly derived from his view of human nature. In the state of nature, man is equal, giving them equal capacity to do anything to survive. Hobbes characterizes man as inherently violent. The state of nature, he insists, is a “state of warre” in which every man was against every man (Hobbes 88) in an effort to pursue their own selfish desires. There are no laws, and because there is no one to enforce laws, no consequences. This results in violent environment, where fear of death run rampant. The life of man in the state of nature, Hobbes famously declares, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes 89).”

Based on Social Contract and Leviathan, civil society is the natural alternative for individuals who would like to abandon the state of nature, for these individuals fear for their personal security. Further, without a common foreman who holds absolute juridical authority between citizens, those who feel their security is at risk are left helpless . I believe this statement to be true, as Locke describes in the state of nature that each person has the right to punish anyone who violates their rights; there are no impartial judges, precise laws, and sufficient power to advocate for the moral law . Thus, I contend that in order to regulate these natural occurrences, Hobbes and Locke agree government is necessary to make violations known and to

Marx’s model of private property views it as means of production creating a division of labor. In his theory, Marx takes a look and how private property, along with wealth, are funneled into the hands of the few leaving the ordinary worker unable to gain wealth from private property. The outcome of Marx’s principle can be seen especially in the last 30 years in the US with the increase of inequality and access to wealth to unprecedented numbers (USA 11).