The United States Government Should Not Be An Active Player

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.

I believe that the United States and should and should not become involved in European affairs, depending on the situation. I say this because, in the world of different nations, it is almost impossible to not have foreign affairs. It is very important for leaders from different nations to communicate to avoid conflicts. Also, foreign affairs can benefit both parties such as establishing trade relations and exchanging resources. but at the same time European countries are their own country we do not own any part of them, so we can not interfere with matters that have nothing to do with us. Why would we need include our-self in a country that has shared nothing but their liberal views in our country. (Liberals are the opposite of conservatives, and they sometimes believe in abortion and homosexuality.)

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.

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.

The framers believed that human nature was self-interested and that inequalities of wealth were the principle sources of conflict. However, they had no intrinsic desire to remove the distinct divisions in society by converting private property to common ownership. Influenced by Lockean ideas based on a belief in natural rights, framers believed that protecting private property was and still is a fundamental role of the government (Dunn, 1982). According to Locke, the sole purpose of government was to protect natural rights. A government must be built on the consent of the governed, and it should be a limited government (Schneider and Peardon, 1953).

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).

In Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, he defines his view of private property. He states that the earth belongs to all men in common,

In the Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, he writes about the right to private property. In the chapter which is titled “Of Property” he tells how the right to private property originated, the role it plays in the state of nature, the limitations that are set on the rights of private property, the role the invention of money played in property rights and the role property rights play after the establishment of government.. In this chapter Locke makes significant points about private property. In this paper I will summarize his analysis of the right to private property, and I will give my opinion on some of the points Locke makes in his book. According to Locke, the right to private property originated when God gave the world to

A weak fiscal position can cause weak government ability to provide security for property rights, and makes it harder to borrow in the face of security crisis’s. Citizens receive value from government’s role in making and enforcing laws that give citizens the opportunity to freely pursue opportunities. The US is a developed economy but don’t mean its government doesn’t need to retake reform measures. Having an orderly governing body allows private citizens to make long term investment decisions about their personal resources. The government involvement is vital because it provides the best opportunity to accomplish its national investment and growth goals through entrepreneurial spirits of all citizens.

In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke creates an argument that details how individuals attain private property and how some can end up with more property than others. He attempts to justify the resulting economic inequality, but is unsuccessful, failing to address many of the problematic issues that arise from his claim.

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.

Having established his state of nature, Locke begins his description of the formation and transition to society, and appropriately starts with a discussion of property. “God, who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of Life, and convenience.” (Locke, Second Treatise, V.26). Here, Locke does little more than apply natural law (self preservation) to what he sees around him (land), but in doing so, makes a groundbreaking shift. He reveals that, following from natural law, men have a right to use what they have around them to further their own preservation and lives. In addition, man has an inherent, and obvious, possession of himself and all that comes with it, including, and most importantly, labor. “The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” (Locke, Second Treatise,

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

1. The quote was made by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) in his creation “On Social Contract (1762)” (Rousseau, Social Contract, 4). Rousseau’s discourse on private property can be understood as a response to John Locke’s theories regarding property – and especially to Locke’s labor theory and the government’s role in it (assumption based on the similarity of their discourse). According to Locke’s labor theory, a man’s labor defines his right to own something (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 16) and that one of the government’s top priorities is to guarantee inheritance of private property for those who have and own something (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 37). The theory also contains the aspect that one can own something if he improves it (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 15).

John Locke’s Views on Property and Liberty, as Outlined in His Second Treatise of Government