Introduction
A primary focus of philosophical writings has always been the significance of theorizing the origins of the state and the development of civilized society, characterized by codified sets of liberties and rights. Ideologies are later connected with more pragmatic methods, comparing two earlier ideas of human socialization and the need for contrast. Differentiating between philosophies is easier when examining the origins of society and states.
Private Property in Locke’s, Rousseau’s, and Spencer’s Views
Private property is one of the many concepts that are viewed differently in various periods of human development. Property lays the ground for the evolution of political and economic agendas. Prominent philosophers have expressed their differing opinions on the acquisition of property.
John Locke
John Locke’s theory posits that property is initially acquired through laboring on natural resources. In “Labour as the Basis of Property,” John Locke inquired about the rights individuals can use to claim ownership of a part of the universe, given that, according to the Bible, it was given by God to all humanity in common (Papke 14). He answers that as much as persons belong to God, they should only own the fruits of their labor (Bajohr 11). These theories have been significant in justifying principles, indicating that a person can only gain permanent ownership of a natural resource by performing an act of original appropriation.
Locke argues that once an individual works, the labor enters an object, becoming that person’s property (Miah and Yasushi 65). Labor allows man to remove a state created by nature and join it to become their property. He continues to say that labor is an unquestionable property of the laborers (Miah and Yasushi 121). No individual has the right to what belongs to another person.
On who can own property, Locke indicates that people have the right to work on nature, but can only do so when it is enough and leaves space for others to work on it. The provision maintains that an owned resource appropriation diminishes other people’s rights and would only be appreciated if it does not make a person more than they were before. On how property must be used, Locke suggests that an individual’s property right is natural (Papke 22). It follows that the fruits of one’s labor are a person’s property as they have worked on it. Due to these, laborers must hold natural property rights in the resource as exclusive ownership, which is ideally essential for production. The property owner must then ensure that they promote productivity.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Unlike Locke, Rousseau felt that humans had no right to property. In “The Earth Belongs to Nobody,” he views property as a source of corruption and evil. However, he does not foreclose the possibility that property may also serve as an element of order, thereby promoting a good life. Rousseau understands that possession of property in its primitive form is natural, and humans derive it from individual labor. However, he stresses that possession rights are strictly relational phenomena founded not on nature but on society (Pierce 2).
Rousseau criticizes ownership and views the suffering caused by private property as an unintended evil consequence. This philosopher believed that the social compact should substitute legitimate and moral equality for whatever physical inequality nature has imposed on men (Pierce 3). Regarding who can claim property, Rousseau notes that public property belongs to everyone, while private property belongs to individuals. Society has public possession by virtue of the right of first occupants, which means that society enforces Annie’s possession as property.
Rousseau argues that a person should not try to own more than he can properly manage. If a piece of land is given to an individual who does not bring fruitfulness, the person may lose the right to ownership. Rousseau views property as a source of inequality, thereby widening the gap between property owners and those experiencing poverty (Pierce 5). He advocates for social contracts as a means to address this conflict, which can prevent wars and quarrels.
Herbert Spencer
According to Herbert Spencer in “The Right to the Use of the Earth,” denying people the right to possess property would contradict equal freedom, as it is a fundamental aspect of human nature. This insight reveals a significant flaw in communist theory because the desire for property is one of our inherent impulses (Bragues 211). Furthermore, if a man’s nature includes a propensity for personal acquisition, a reasonable community cannot restrict it.
Society’s nature and functioning may not change regardless of its position. There must be some desire for personal acquisition, but it must be controlled. This implies that the private property system must be protected, which presupposes the existence of a right to private property. By right, it means that which conforms to the human constitution as divinely ordained. Spencer believed that because property is consistent with the human constitution, society should recognize it as a right (Bragues 217). Furthermore, he argued that rejecting individual property rights led to logical absurdities.
Modern Views on Property in 2022 America
In current America in 2022, property is viewed as tangible or intangible material where a legal relationship exists between the state and an individual legal title or possessory interest. The property regime has come to mediate between an individual and their property. Privatization has also emerged in the advancement of privatization. This has increased the consequences of poor management.
In the current era, property is a foundation of capitalism and an economic system based on private ownership of operating profit and means of production. Protecting private property is significant in preserving individual freedom, and one cannot be free unless one is self-dependent. This aspect of the property is not good, resulting in significant societal differences and inequalities. Social stratification has been rampant and has a higher effect on social prejudices.
Distributive Justice in Hume’s and Marx’s Views
Distributive justice comprises perceptions of fairness in allocating resources and judging what individuals receive. This entails sharing awards and costs among individuals and all group members. The theory assumes that there is fairness in the distribution of resources, and equal work should be able to provide persons with equal outcomes in terms of acquired goods or the ability to acquire the goods. The unequal distribution of resources across society is a fundamental cause of inequalities.
David Hume
According to Hume in “The Impossibility of Equality,” justice prevails only when goods required by people cannot be available to the extent that every person can acquire all they need without depriving others of the things they need to satisfy them. Hume’s position on the possibility of distributive justice is that this aspect does not exist. He argues that Justice and equality rules depend solely on particular conditions and states in which persons are placed to that utility and all their origins (Donoghue 70). The government needs to treat people with respect, concern, and equality in both concepts. It must not distribute opportunities and goods equally in any way that some persons are entitled to because they are worth more.
Hume holds that the principles of justice and law are the stability of possession. He continues to say that, as much as these laws are necessary, justice remains artificial and not a natural virtue (Donoghue 72). Hume indicates that even if there were equality in resource distribution, the market would still generate inequalities (Donoghue 73). Some individuals may still want to engage in competition and increase power.
Karl Marx
In “From Each According to His Abilities, To Each According to His Needs,” Marx opposes the notion of fair resource distribution in his criticism. To address it as a civic right, Marx proposed replacing the limited distribution based on labor “to each according to his needs” later in communism (Bellando 30). Apart from justice and reciprocity, there has always been the concept of each person according to his necessities. One of his distinguishing features is the distributional principle of “to each according to his effort and participation” (Bellando 33). It refers to a system in which each individual’s remuneration represents their contribution to the social product in terms of effort, labor, and productivity.
Marxists think that a perfected communist society will be able to produce an excess of goods and services, allowing such a system to be viable (Bellando 35). Once socialism has fully developed and the forces of production are unrestricted, there will be sufficient resources to meet everyone’s demands. Marx claims that once private property ownership is eliminated, the circumstances for oppression diminish, allowing for equitable allocation.
The gap between the affluent and the low-income persons in the community continues to rise. The law affects persons with systematic and overlapping disadvantages affecting their everyday lives. Economic justice needs to be distributed in society to eliminate these inequalities.
A system of progressive taxation can be used where tax increases as the base income increases. The method will be worthwhile in providing needed funds for public service. The income may be used to provide affordable housing and need-based federal financing. Additionally, economic justice may drive efforts to end gender-driven wage gaps. Elevating the income of workers who used to be paid low wages may help reduce inequality.
Conclusion
Economic justice supports the notion that creating more opportunities for all society members would help them earn viable wages that would contribute significantly to sustainable economic growth. If most citizens can maintain a stable income, they are more likely to spend it on goods, which drives higher economic demand. Enabling everyone to have an equal chance to earn their income is good for the economy, as more money will result in greater spending on goods and services. When pure capitalism is left without any intervention, employers achieve a fair amount of power over workers, which leads to inhumane exploitation and treatment of the employees.
Economic justice enables everyone to access the material resources needed to create opportunities for a significant life unencumbered by the challenges caused by economics. The pursuit of economic justice will enhance the pursuit of financial solvency and enable people to live sustainably. Economic justice will positively impact society as everyone will have a chance to receive a universal basic income regardless of race, gender, or any other form of prejudice, which is equal opportunities for credit and employment.
Works Cited
Bajohr, Hannes. “Hans Blumenberg’s Early Theory of Technology and History.” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, 2019, pp. 3-15.
Bellando, Edoardo. “Marx on Distributive Justice,“From Each According to His Ability, to Each According to His Needs”.” New Proposals, vol. 11, no. 2, 2021, pp. 27-39.
Bragues, George. “Herbert Spencer’s Principle of Equal Freedom.” The Independent Review, vol. 25, no. 2, 2020, pp. 207-228.
Donoghue, Mark. “A History of Utilitarian Ethics: Studies in Private Motivation and Distributive Justice, 1700–1875” History of Economic Review, vol. 78, no. 1, 2021, pp. 70-74.
Miah, Mohammad Dulal, and Yasushi Suzuki. Power, Property Rights, and Economic Development. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Papke, David Ray. “The Jurisprudence of Transcendentalism.” Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper, vol. 12, no. 2, 2022, pp. 1-12.
Pierce, Stephen. “Locke vs. Rousseau: Revolutions in Property.” The Histories, vol. 15, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-7.