Locke believes that God gave this world to men in common but he gave this to men for their conveniences. Man has the power of reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life. He keeps on going and says, man has a property in himself that is his labour. With whatever thing provided by the nature anyone mixes his labour that becomes his private property. This does not mean that Locke gives unlimited right to private property, there are some limitations also. These limitations are-
a) An individual had a right only to that much for which he had mixed his labour.
b) One should leave enough for others.
c) Property should not be destroyed in the process.
But with introduction of money, the restriction put-up by Locke goes away. An individual has absolute right to the …show more content…
Locke and Marx are similar in that both accord to labour the power of creating value. However, Locke argues from this creation to the natural right to property; Marx argues from this power to the tremendous alienation experienced by the worker at different levels. Hence Marx rejects private property and advocates abolition. The history of ideas witness the conceptual difficulties encountered by the Marxian project. The history of the world is witness to the practical economic non sustainability of the abolition of private property. In addition there seems to be a tension between the Marxian idea of abolition of private property and one strong sense in which justice has been understood by human persons and philosophers. For example, when J. S. Mill discusses the ordinary senses of Justice speaks of justice as giving every person just rewards. He says “it is universally considered just that each person should obtain that (whether good or evil) which he deserves” . This sense of receiving rewards appropriate to your effort as being what you deserve is an important understanding of
a) An individual had a right only to that much for which he had mixed his labour.
b) One should leave enough for others.
c) Property should not be destroyed in the process.
But with introduction of money, the restriction put-up by Locke goes away. An individual has absolute right to the …show more content…
Locke and Marx are similar in that both accord to labour the power of creating value. However, Locke argues from this creation to the natural right to property; Marx argues from this power to the tremendous alienation experienced by the worker at different levels. Hence Marx rejects private property and advocates abolition. The history of ideas witness the conceptual difficulties encountered by the Marxian project. The history of the world is witness to the practical economic non sustainability of the abolition of private property. In addition there seems to be a tension between the Marxian idea of abolition of private property and one strong sense in which justice has been understood by human persons and philosophers. For example, when J. S. Mill discusses the ordinary senses of Justice speaks of justice as giving every person just rewards. He says “it is universally considered just that each person should obtain that (whether good or evil) which he deserves” . This sense of receiving rewards appropriate to your effort as being what you deserve is an important understanding of