Difference between revisions of "The worthless Lockean Fable of Initial Acquisition"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
This is a religious belief, founded in sacred texts. It has no more force than a king's declaration that he is appointed by god to rule a land. | This is a religious belief, founded in sacred texts. It has no more force than a king's declaration that he is appointed by god to rule a land. | ||
== yet every man has a property in his own person: == | == yet every man has a property in his own person: == | ||
| − | Yet another unjustifiable natural rights dogma that certainly didn't hold in Locke's era of widespread slavery, monarchy, and patriarchy. Property is a social construct, and no society of his time or ours treated people's bodies as their own property. | + | Yet another unjustifiable natural rights dogma that certainly didn't hold in Locke's era of widespread slavery, monarchy, and patriarchy. Property is a social construct, and no society of his time or ours treated people's bodies as their own property. Locke does not explain or defend this view in any way: he merely expects us to nod our heads in agreement. |
== this no body has any right to but himself. == | == this no body has any right to but himself. == | ||
Excepting slaves, women, children, servants, employees, lower classes, prisoners, etc. But let's say that this was aspirational, what he would like, as opposed to reality. | Excepting slaves, women, children, servants, employees, lower classes, prisoners, etc. But let's say that this was aspirational, what he would like, as opposed to reality. | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
# The first person to mix labor. | # The first person to mix labor. | ||
Most natural rights people would say number 5: but case 4 is identical. And why does a head start make a difference? Is there some moral right to "first come first served"? | Most natural rights people would say number 5: but case 4 is identical. And why does a head start make a difference? Is there some moral right to "first come first served"? | ||
| + | |||
| + | But it gets much worse. As Susan Moller Okin points out in [[Justice, Gender, And The Family]] (pp 79-80), people are created by women. Thus, according to the mixing of labor principle, children would be the property of their mothers. Without an explanation or justification of how people would come to own themselves, they would remain the property of their mothers. | ||
| + | |||
== at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. == | == at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. == | ||
This is the famous Lockean Proviso. In the real world, it is violated as soon as price arises: if there was "enough, and as good, left in common for others" then nobody would need to pay. | This is the famous Lockean Proviso. In the real world, it is violated as soon as price arises: if there was "enough, and as good, left in common for others" then nobody would need to pay. | ||
