The Most Convincing Justification for Private Property

John Locke and Karl Marx, two of the most renowned political philosophers, had many contrasting views when it came the field of political philosophy. Most notably, private property rights ranked high among the plethora of disparities between these two individuals. The main issue at hand was whether or not private property was a natural right. Locke firmly believed that private property was an inherent right, whereas Marx argued otherwise. This essay will examine the views of both Locke and Marx on the subject of private property and will render insight on whose principles appear more credible.

Situations where self interest and public interest work against each other are known as “commons problems.” In the market model the chief source of conflict is individual’s perceived welfare vs. another’s perceived welfare. In the polis model the chief source of conflict is self interest vs. public interest, or “how to have both private benefits and collective benefits.” Stone notes “most actions in the market model do not have social consequences” but in the polis, commons problems “are everything.” It is rare in the polis that the costs and benefits of an action are entirely self-contained, affect only one or two individuals, or are limited to direct and immediate effects. Actions in the polis have unanticipated consequences, side effects, long-term effects, and effect many people. Stone states, “one major dilemma in the polis is how to get people to give weight to these broader consequences in their private calculus of choices, especially in an era when the dominant culture celebrates private consumption and personal gain.” That is a

Many philosophers have written arguments advocating for all types of property rights ranging from private to communal and for a varying array of reasons.Personally, I feel Schmidtz has the most compelling argument surrounding property rights. He argues for private property rights. According to Schmidtz when property does not have an owner and instead belongs to the commons, there is no way to protect that resource. Schmidtz provides the example of fishing using destructive methods. In certain countries, fishermen fish using methods that destroy habitats such as throwing dynamite or bleach in the water. This method has an extremely successful one time effect as all the dead fish float to the top of the water. However, it kills the entire habitat

The concept of property has long been one of the most crucial aspects for the U.S. citizens, as it is a major part of the Constitutional, and, therefore, human rights. Although the perception and understanding of “property” have been considerably changed, especially in terms of political and philosophical vision, it still has a particular meaning for the Americans. In general, the idea of property is the question of the political thought and conceptualized thinking common for the United States. In most cases, its transformations are connected to the introduction of capitalism and related governmental decision in politics. Therefore, as any other topic, the value of property has undergone harsh debates. In particular, such important figures as James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman have developed a fundamental scope of analyses with regard to the property rights in America.

Property: The right to claim and hold property; When it has been laboured for, one encloses it for greater individual profit the profit of the community of Man, it has been laboured for – Natural means of ownership one encloses it – The process of holding legal “deed” for greater individual profit – to build investment equity and avoid poverty of waste the profit of the community of Man – Moral commitment to Human Development (Locke: 1689).

Dame, U. o. (2006, November 28). Public Goods and Common Resources. Retrieved from University of Notre Dame: https://www3.nd.edu/~adutt/courses/documents/19PublicGoodsandCommonResources_Lecture.pdf

Karl Marx and John Locke both formulated philosophical theories that worked to convince people of their rights to freedom and power; however, they had conflicting viewpoints on the idea of private property. Locke felt that property belonged to whoever put their labor into it, and one could accumulate as much property as he or she wants (692). Marx, however, considered the private property of the select few who possessed it to be the product of the exploitation of the working class (1118). Personally, I believe that Locke’s conception of private property is more convincing than Marx’s point of view.

Can greed and self-interest benefit our society’s economy? majority of people would say, but one man by the name of Adam Smith would’ve disagreed. he believed that profit motive even greed could be good for the economy. This very theory spiraled an onset of controversies and debates. However, his theory shined in the right light; justified is the best solution for the economy.

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, two philosophers with differing opinions concerning the concept of private property. Rousseau believes that from the state of nature, private property came about, naturally transcending the human situation into a civil society and at the same time acting as the starting point of inequality amongst individuals. Locke on the other hand argues that private property acts as one of the fundamental, inalienable moral rights that all humans are entitled to. Their arguments clearly differ on this basic issue. This essay will discuss how the further differences between Locke and Rousseau lead from this basic fundamental difference focusing on the acquisition of property and human rights.

‘The quality or state of belonging to the community; as, the publicness of property’. This has

Oligarchs are rulers in an oligarchy that devote all of their material power resources to things such as income defense. They defend wealth by implementing certain policies in addition to their resources, to suit their needs. Income defense is thought to be a political challenge, but with a strong system of laws in play, property rights can help provide strong protections for what is owned. However, the property must be secured in a certain manner for a shift to occur. If property is not attacked and taken by the state without cause or compensation, nor can be threated laterally by other oligarchs or by the masses of non-propertied citizens, “there is a shift for oligarchs in the politics of wealth defense away from engaging in the coercion

The justification of private property is that it is a necessity in society. Nearly everything we cherish as American citizens – advancement, democracy, success, and freedom – rely on the private ownership of the means of production. It is essential for social progress for numerous reasons. First, private property gives people the incentive to work hard. People work to make money, which can be used freely to make purchases. This motive increases their labor output and rewards them for their efforts, which ultimately benefits society. Without it, there would simply be no reason to seek higher-ranking jobs and provide innovation in society. When jobs are in demand, employers can generally fill positions quickly by offering a higher wage. Next, it provides pleasure to those who work hard. The amount a man succeeds or fails in society rests solely on how well they perform. This is completely moral because it rewards your achievements and ability without discrimination. John Locke, an English philosopher from the Age of Enlightenment, claimed there was a natural law before the emergence of regulations of private property. The natural law states that if someone mixes their labor with something that nature has to offer, they have the rights to possess it. He claimed that, “The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with,

The sans-culotte we’re not opposed to the concept of private property, but did despise the indulgent wealth by the bourgeoisie and the elite aristocrats. They thought food should be taken from big landowners and grain-merchants and to be given to small workshops. They called for

private property is the most important and biggest problem Hythloday points out in his discussion about the Utopian society and it was the most important and biggest problem in sixteenth century England. Most people were unemployed and therefore poor at the same time as they had to fight diseases, which, due to underdeveloped medical care, could eradicate entire cities. The Utopians, however, have solved this problem by abolishing private property in total. Money, gold and precious stones do not have any value on the island. Instead, everybody is equal and food, as well as everything else a person might need, is distributed by the public. Whether or not Thomas More actually suggested this as a solution for the English society remains to be

What also characterizes market society is the emergence of the concept of “fictitious commodities”. Fictitious commodities refer to labor, land, and money (Polanyi 72). “fictitious” implies that they are actually not commodities (Polanyi 72). They are turned into commodities for the effective operation of market society (Polanyi 72). In market society, everything is provided as a commodity. As the major elements of industry, labor, land , and money need to be provided for maintaining productivity and they can only be provided when they are on the market for sale (Polanyi 72). Differently, “Under the feudalism and the gild system land and labor formed part of the social organization itself ” (Polanyi 69). Land were crucial for feudal order, status and function of which “were determined by legal and customary