Property Rights Libertarianism

John Locke defends the right to private property in Second Treatise of Government by transforming Biblical principles into Capitalist principles. Locke explores nine steps that stem from the Book of Genesis to explain “in a positive way how men could come to own various particular parts of something that God gave to mankind in common” (Locke 11). Locke believes that the unnatural inequality is perfectly acceptable. because he notes that some people work harder than others so they deserve more. The only way to ensure his argument is to guarantee that private property is secured by divinity, otherwise men can give and take away property freely, which includes the sovereign.

In the article, “The Case For Free Money: Why Don’t We Have Universal Basic Income,” James Surowiecki presents the benefits of a universal basic income and why it is appealing to workers and politicians. After an experiment, known as “Mincome,” implanted universal basic income in Dauphin during the 1970s, evidence clearly shows that the Canadian town received remarkable advantages, such as lowered dropout rates and hospitalization rates. The idea of universal basic income is not new, however, it is regaining popularity. Contrary to popular belief, some from both the Democratic and Republican parties support assured basic income, Surowiecki claims. The current push for universal basic income is emboldened by the rising concern of advancing

Carole Pateman’s work on “Democratizing Citizenship: Some Advantages of a Basic Income” argues for a universal basic income (UBI) to all citizens. Pateman argues why it would help with democratization in regards to the institutions of marriage, employment, and citizenship, and why people should support it. Although Pateman does provide clear reasons as to why a UBI would help benefit our society, she does not acknowledge how it would happen and does little to address the feasibility of such a large societal and systemic overhaul. Pateman fails to focus on the key aspects of a UBI such as payment, economic repercussions and women's rights.

John Locke believed that all people have the right to property. Property included one’s own body and anything that someone’s labor has produced. The right to one’s own body is considered the freedom to live life and pursue happiness without interference from others. The right to something that one’s labor has produced comes from Locke’s idea

Natural rights are not given to any man by the government every man is born with them. The right to own property is one of the natural rights that John Locke thought of during the enlightenment era. John Locke said that the reason that people should be able to own property is because everyone owns property in themselves so therefore people should have the rights to land. John Locke also says that more than land or property can be sold or given away, also the goods from the land can be sold or bought. This way of property rights was in effect in the U.S until 1926 when there was no just “taking” land any more, if land was taken it could only be used for public works.(John) Now since 1926 people have had to pay for the land that they want, but the value of land went down because there could only be one house per two or more acres instead of the only being one house per acre.(Powell) Liberty is a natural right that John Locke believed that people could govern themselves, John also did not see the need for a government, he said the only reason for a government is to protect the natural rights such as liberty. John believed that with liberty everyone is free to do what they please and that everyone should make mistakes as long as them mistakes are not affecting the liberty of other people. Currently in the U.S this right is similar

In Locke’s view, everyone is equal in the state of nature, with the same advantages and privileges. Therefore, no individual has the right to abuse the liberty of others, even if they have the freedom and ability to do so. This abuse, termed as license, exists outside the state of nature and Locke believes that this power is not granted to anyone. This is especially important when considering the power of the government. For Locke, the power of the government must be limited to the laws of nature.

Property and Contract: Individuals should be free of government interference to profit from their own personal property as long as no harm comes to others (Libertarian Party 2015).

Locke makes it clear that one individual does not own or have the right over another individual’s life, due to the equal creation of all individuals under one God (Locke 8). An individual has the right over their own body and laws that encourage one individual’s ownership over another is unjust and not natural to humanity (17). Property also plays an important role in Locke’s philosophy because it seems to be an extension of an individual’s right over one’s self. Slavery requires labor and this labor produces, this labor is also a person’s private property and violation of this could be considered violation of an individual’s right over their own life.

In order for property rights to exist, they must be recognized by other individuals through the act of mixing physical labor with nature. In The Second Treatise of Government Locke says, “The labor of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his. So when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labor with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property.” Here Locke is stating that if one works and puts their labor into that something it is now his or hers property and that person can do whatever they want to

Locke reasoning behind stating that “Men have agreed to disproportionate and unequal Possession of the Earth” is based on our use of money (or gold and silver), which we use to represent value, wealth and labor but also allows for the hoarding of such representations seemingly without harm or inconvenience to others. His hypothesis on how the use of money as a tool to save value was established is based on his doctrine on the use of the natural world, which helps explain how he thought of ownership. The basic premise is that one has the right, according to scripture, to have access to the natural world. He says our access to the natural world is limited only to that which we can work, benefit from and use without encroaching on others’

23) clearly specified that a man can possess more lands without injuring another due to partage of things. Thus, when a person possessed gold and silver, he is able to acquire more privately. This contention manifests how man's property is correlated to the labor a person puts into it. Because of this, Locke (2002, p. 23) argued that the government should regulate how people acquire property. In a way, people who lived centuries ago were unconscious of their “tacit and voluntary consent” in the “disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth” (Locke, 2002, p. 23).

According to Locke, naturally we are possessive beings and are born with the will to survive. Back in Locke's' time there was no “modern” technology therefore, everyone relied on land to make sure they received the nutrients they needed. Because they were free to do what they wanted, as long as you respected the land and community around you, you were putting good into the world. However, in Locke’s eyes property was not useful unless one could survive off of it. To make land useable, one has to put the hard work into the property so that they can survive. Once you've done this and have survived off the land you establish a natural possession to that land because you made it what it is.

When looking at property distribution it is easy to come to the conclusion that Robert Nozick’s libertarian account of property rights is the most reasonable theory. Nozick’s view is one that can be easily defended and there are plenty of examples to support the claims he makes. By utilizing Nozick’s theory, property distribution can be understood and improved on a grand scale. Before I am able to support these claims, it is important for the reader to truly understand key aspects of his theory. After describing the most important parts of his theory I will offer examples and reasons that offer support to his theory. There are also certain counterarguments against his views that I will address later in this paper to show these counterarguments

When someone else tries to infiltrate our property, we get defensive. To privately own somethings means that you possess the enforceable right to exclude others from using it. How is it we can justify this right to exclude? A summary of how John Locke explains this is you can take private property for yourself if you leave enough and as good for others. If others’ lives are just as good after you took the goods opposed to before, you have done no wrong. Several philosophers have argued that private property cannot be justified on these lines. They argue that we live in a world of scarce resources and if you take from the common pool of resources you automatically decrease the satisfaction everyone else can receive from these goods. This thought process means that there is no way to privatize a specific resource and leave enough and as good for others. For example, if you take an apple from an apple tree you leave fewer apples for everyone else. Therefore, it is unclear how we can justify private property on these lines. This also leads to the tragedy of the commons. What we really want out of society is to make the economic pie bigger (establishing property rights) for everyone rather than people just cutting out slices for themselves (no property rights). This can be referred to as a positive sum

1b. Locke believes that people's natural rights are the ultimate freedom. However in the state of nature, he suggests that the protection of people was limited on the belief that others would live by the same rules. Similar to the saying, “treat people the way you want to be treated”. People are morally bound to respect other’s possessions and beliefs in the natural life. Unfortunately, in the state of nature, rules are often underwritten based upon man’s intentions. However, when someone broke moral code, the governing of the masses would provide a just consequence on behalf of the collective agreement. This ensured that a single person wouldn’t seek to roam at free will and be the judge of his own actions. Obviously, that would lead to a