|
 |
|
Hume says it is not reasoning, but custom that separates man's gathering of knowledge from animals.
Locke's argument would be valid if there was good and enough for others to labour upon and gain wealth (Locke, 20), but since there is not because of unequal property, he has merely set up a system in which the government could be overthrown, but wealth maintained in the same hands. If no man should appropriate more than he can use and beyond this share is for others (Locke, 20), what right does man have to massive property when others are starving and have none? Locke would probably argue that the fruits of their labour will grant them property and that they should work harder, but on what property should they labour upon, if all property has been divided? Today, farmers are paid not to grow or to burn excess grain and food. Does not this unused share of land and the right to labour upon it then belong to others? If unequal ownership is started with the appropriation of property, do not the laws that applied to that appropriation apply ad infinitum?
|
|
|
|
|
| view all members >> |
|
|
|
New Featured
There are, however, two possible reasons for de Beauvoir's primacy of freedom for others. One is that she has created a value scheme which promotes such values. But if this were simply the case, there...
|
|
|
|
According to Locke, "If one is to act in such a way that appears contrary to the natural laws, it is the right and responsibility of all men affected by these actions to judge and punish the offender....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Featured
Plato's writings were arranged in groups of four. The dialog form used by Plato came naturally out of Greek drama, the Athenian habit of discussion and the use of dialog by Socrates.
The response of ...
|
06/12/2008 00:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList