Locke Arguments In Support Of Private Property Philosophy Essay

Locke Arguments In Support Of Private Property Philosophy Essay What are Natural Rights? A Natural Right is a universal right that everyone has all around the world. In particular, Natural Rights is a political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights. Us as humans were born with these natural rights. Natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, which is the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God. The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right. A legal right is specifically created by the government, while a natural right is claimed even when it Is Private Property a Natural Right? Yes! I consider Private Property a Natural Right. Private Property plays a big role within Natural Rights. Many philosophers including Locke, Marx, and Rawls each had their position on private property. This leads to the question: What is Private Property? You can not just give one definition because as I said before, many philosophers had different positions about private property on natural rights. If I had to define Private Property, I would say it is any property that is not public property, and may be under the control of a group or a single individual. It is like a claim to something that excludes others from having that same privilege. The one philosopher that I will talk about is John Locke. John Locke (29 August 1632 28 October 1704) was an English philosopher. Locke is considered the first of the British empiricist, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential enlightenment thinkers, classical republicans, and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American Revolutionaries. Lockes theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first philosopher to define the self through a continuity of consciousness. He also postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian Philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas. John Lockes position on private property being a natural right is really different from that of other philosophers. Locke was a major social contract thinker who argued that all people know what to do and why they do it therefore making sense. He said that mans natural rights are life, liberty, and property. 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 men. Locke makes the argument that when God created the world for man, he gave man reason to make use of the world to the best advantage of life, and convenience. What he means by that is, that God made this world for man, and when he made it he gave m an the right to use what is in this world to his benefit. Locke explains that every man has property in his own person, and that nobody has any right to that property but that person. The author states that whatsoever then he removes out of the state of nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property (Locke pg. 19). What Locke means by that statement is that once a person removes something out of its original state of nature that something becomes that persons property. After someone gains this property are there any limitations on that property? Locke believes that there are limitations on that property. Locke believes that God has given us all things richly, and that man may use those things as long as he takes what he needs. Locke believes that the purpose of government is to protect property and that society was set up to avoid civil or foreign wars that may occur over the dispute of property. Locke attempts to rationalize the right of men having unequal possessions of the earth, but fails because he does not recognize that unequal ownership of property does not allow for the basis of his argument that ownership of property is only justified if there is good and enough for others. The right to private property is the cornerstone of Lockes political theory, encapsulating how each man relates to God and to other men. Locke explains that man originally exists in a state of nature in which he needs answer only to the laws of nature. In this state of nature, men are free to do as they please, so long as they preserve peace and preserve mankind in general. Because they have a right to self-preservation, it follows that they have the right to those things that will help them to survive and be happy. God has provided us with all the materials we need to pursue those ends, but these natural resources are useless until men apply their efforts to them. For example, a field is useless until it produces food, and no field will produce food until someone farms it. Â  Locke proposes that because all men own their bodies completely, any product of their physical labour also belongs to them. Thus, when a man works on some goods or material, he becomes the owner of that goods or material. The man who farms the land and has produced food owns the land and the food that his labour created. However the restriction to private property is that, because God wants all his children to be happy, no man can take possession of something if he harms another in doing so. He cannot take possession of more than he can use, for example, because he would then be wasting materials that might otherwise be used by another person. Unfortunately, the world is afflicted by immoral men who violate these natural laws. By coming together in the social-political compact of a community that can create and enforce laws, men are guaranteed better protection of their property and other freedoms. Lockes treatment of property is generally thought to be among his most important contributions in political thought, but it is also one of the aspects of his thought that has been most heavily criticized. There are important debates over what exactly Locke was trying to accomplish with his theory. One interpretation, advanced by C.B. Macpherson, sees Locke as a defender of unrestricted capitalist accumulation. Locke used the idea of a state of nature to present his political views, Locke argued that men have rights, including those to life and property, and the Two Treatises justifies revolution in some circumstances. C.B. Macpherson marshalled various facts so as to argue that Locke defended the rationality of unlimited desire, and so capital accumulation, in a way that provided a moral basis for capitalism. What is more, he did so in the context of a broadly Marxist historiography, according to which British theorists of the seventeenth and eighteenth century adopted ideas which reflected the emergence of a capitalist economy. When historians criticise and compare theories in terms of accepted facts, they can use criteria of accuracy, comprehensiveness, consistency, fruitfulness, openness, and progressiveness. Alan Ryan has criticised Macpherson for inaccuracy. He argued that Macpherson was wrong to say Locke thought rationality was restricted to one class who went in for the acquisition of capital goods. Rather, Locke explicitly said that all adults apart from lunatics were rational enough to understand what the law of nature required of them. Ryan also has criticised Macpherson, at least implicitly, for failing to be comprehensive: Macphersons theory could not account for the many passages in the Two Treatises that Ryan used to show that Locke said things clearly contrary to Macphersons interpretation. More generally, Ryan has suggested that Macphersons errors stem from an unfruitful method. John Dunn too has criticised Macpherson for not being comprehensive: Macphersons theory took no account of Lockes religious faith, a faith which provided the unifying theme of Lockes thought. In particular, Dunn has argued that Locke could not have intended to demonstrate the overriding rationality of capital accumulation precisely because his view of rationality depended on his religious beliefs, and so for him the rationality of any action in this world necessarily would de pend on the effect of the action on ones after-life. More recently, James Tully has developed Dunns broad critique of Macpherson by interpreting the Two Treatises, within the context of Lockes religious beliefs, as an attempt to defend a self-governing community of small proprietors enjoying the security to harvest the fruits of their labours, an ideal which Tully sees as contrary to capitalism. More generally, Dunn too related Macphersons erroneous view of Locke to a faulty method. Instead, Dunn advocated, against Ryan as well as Macpherson, a method which would focus on the intentions that it makes sense to ascribe to authors in the light of what we know of the characteristic beliefs of their time. Because people can respond to criticism in a way that strengthens their theory, comparison must be a more or less continuous activity. However, our criteria of comparison suggest we should scrutinise the way in which people deflect criticisms to see if they do so in a progressive manner maintaining the openness of their theory. Thus, if Macpherson responded to the criticisms of Ryan or Dunn, or if Ryan responded to the criticisms of Dunn, we would want to know whether their revised views represented either a progressive development of their theories or a purely defensive hypothesis. For example, Neal Wood has defended an interpretation of Locke that we might regard as a revised version of Macphersons view in so far as it apparently rests on a fairly similar, broadly Marxist historiography. Wood criticises Tullys interpretation of Locke for being incomplete, and possibly inconsistent. Robert Nozick also questions the idea of mixing and in doing so, offers an alternative explanation to Levines objection. In Anarchy, State and Utopia he asks, Why isnt mixing what I own with what I dont own a way of losing what I own rather than a way of gaining what I dont? If I own a can of tomato juice and spill it in the sea so that its molecules mingle evenly throughout the sea, do I thereby come to own the sea, or have I foolishly dissipated my tomato juice? Nozick reformulates Lockes idea by saying that one does not appropriate something by mixing labour with it, but rather by labouring on it and improving it to make it more valuable. By extensions, anyone is entitled to own a thing whose value he has created. Nozick himself asks why ones entitlement should extend to the whole object rather than just to the added value ones labour has produced. However, he gives no real argument against this and instead notes that no value-added property scheme has ever been devised. Nozick suggests Someone may be made worse off by anothers appropriation in two ways: first, by losing the opportunity to improve his situation by a particular appropriation or any one; and second, by no longer being able to use freely (without appropriation) what he previously could. However, Nozicks revision does make the intuition that underlies the Lockean proviso, that the harmless appropriation of unowned things is morally defensible, more plausible than Lockes own formulation does. It does so, though, at the cost of introducing a consideration foreign to Lockes way of thinking into the very heart of his theory. Nozick, being a libertarian at heart, agrees with the essence of Lockes theory but prefers to reformulate certain areas that he thinks do not work. It is difficult to conclude whether Lockes natural right of property should be accepted since we know from history that initial acquisition of property was not done on a Lockean basis.

My Pet Elephant Essay

Hello there. This is the story about the first time I got a pet. my name is Hugo Lambrechts and here is where it all began. Last night at around 12:00 pm I was about to go to bed when I saw a present on my bed from my Mom .When I opened my gift I saw a toy elephant inside. I saw it and I stared for quite some time, took a big breath and smiled. When I was about to go to bed I was dreaming of having a pet elephant and how it would be to have an elephant for a pet. The next morning, it was my birthday! I jumped for joy. Mom greeted me a happy birthday. Then I saw my dad , he was the one i had to beat, I mean if I want a pet elephant, then I have to go through him. I said â€Å"Good morning Dad.† Then dad said â€Å"Happy Birthday! What would you like for your birthday?† I asked him â€Å"Dad can I have a pet elephant?† My Dad looked shocked then he laughed a little then he became serious. He said with a loud voice, â€Å"No! You can’ t have a pet elephant! I mean do you even know how to take care of an elephant?† I didn’t know what to say, I was stuttering like I was in the North Pole for days. Then the school bus went by with a big â€Å"HONK!† I can’t believe I was saved by the school bus. I was rushing to get out as soon as possible. â€Å"Bye Dad, Bye Mom see ya later.† I said in a rush. Then I raced out the door in the school bus and off to school. After school, I got home then I overheard my Dad talking on the phone then he was talking about work and stuff then it hit me I heard him talking about a present! Then that made me think. So I just went up to my room and thought about it for a long time. The next day, while I was eating breakfast I saw my dad focused on the computer looking for something on a site about wildlife and stuff. So it made me wonder more and more. So when I got back from school I saw my Dad and Mom in front of the TV watching those documentaries about animals and so when I got bored I went upstairs in my room and thought about it again. When I got home I saw boxes everywhere and so I asked, â€Å"What are these boxes for?† Then Mom answered â€Å"We are moving to a new house.† Then I asked† But why?† â€Å"You’ll see.† Said my Mom with excitement. Page 3 Then I went upstairs to pack my things. While we were driving to North Island I was thinking about what will the surprise be? So when I got there I went running down the car and up the stairs and into the room. Then I saw a basket on the floor and it said To Hugo Dear darling Hugo Happy Birthday! I hope you love your gift. From your parents Then when I opened the basket it was a baby elephant inside! .And that is the story of how I got my pet elephant.

Shocking Education Stats that You Didn’t Know

Education is considered a great equalizer, something countries and leaders the world over know rather well. The world inches on towards the goal of ensuring universal literacy. This noble goal, however, is still far off, as political, economic, religious and economic disputes are prone to remind the world. It’s not just the developing countries that are behind in education even with their population control woes and economically hamstrung budgets. The world as a whole, it seems, is sliding into a morass of lethargic attitudes towards educating tomorrow’s generations. Let’s take a look at some shocking facts that illustrate the state of education in the US. Being the superpower, one would be forgiven for thinking the education in one of the most prosperous regions of the planet might be better. These facts, however, post a rather dismal picture, one policy czars need to pay attention to. Dropout Central From being a world leader in education some 40 years ago, the US is now home to a dysfunctional education system for natives. It is widely observed recently that 1.2 million students drop out of their studies in a school year. To put it in the proper perspective, about 7000 individuals forfeit their chance for a better future every day. If one were to be more microscopic about this, the figure becomes 1 student every 26 seconds. Talk about a dire state. How Do These Dropouts End Up? Not every dropout has the technical whiz kid skills of Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg (and these two high profile dropouts actually encourage people to go back and complete their graduate studies). People who exit the educational system as dropouts are in for a rough ride. It is widely believed these individuals are: 50% less likely to exercise their democratic right to vote. Not considered for the job market (some 90% new employment opportunities are lost to these people forever). Generally earn less and end up working longer hours than college grads. Have a hard time just making ends meet. Likely to have more potential to end up in a prison. 800% more chances to be precise! A constant drain on the welfare system, living off the crumbs. ‘Did you know that the average American has more difficulty solving a math problem than cleaning a bathroom? Say like 30% of the population.’ The US Is Worse Than New Zealand When It Comes To Industrialized Nations with College Degree Levels The US is in 12th position amongst the 36 industrialized countries of the world in terms of percentage of adults with a college-level degree. Canada and Israel fare better than the sole superpower of the world. There’s some food for thought. However, Not All Is Lost The situation might be dire. But when one compares the percentage of American graduates with the rest of the world, the picture becomes rosier. Some 40% of the American adults have a degree to their credit. Contrast this with 6.7% of the adults in the rest of the world, and people are inclined to agree the education system, no matter how broken, is still accomplishing major milestones. Conclusion Universal literacy is a world-wide goal. The  USAID grants aid for impoverished and developing countries to improve their standard of education. Disenfranchisement levels are being brought down due to the presence of professionals in the recipient countries who make the dream of literacy come true to otherwise remote areas. That being said, the US needs to do more to fix up its own education woes as well. Charity does, after all, begin at home. And thanks to philanthropists and some much required governmental support, reforms are been undertaken to correct the course of the ship and arrest the educational slump in the affected areas. It will take time to see the fruits of the labor, but rest assured, the outcome will be favorable.

Defining Programming Language

A programming language is used to write computer  programs including applications, utilities, and systems programs. Before the Java and C# programming languages appeared, computer programs were either compiled or interpreted.   A compiled program is written as a series of humanly understandable computer instructions that can be read by a  compiler  and  linker  and translated into  machine code  so that a computer can understand and run it. Fortran, Pascal, Assembly Language, C, and C programming languages are almost always compiled in this way. Other programs, such as Basic, JavaScript, and VBScript, are interpreted. The differences between compiled and interpreted languages  can be confusing. Compiling a Program The development of a compiled program follows these basic steps: Write or edit the programCompile the program into machine code files that are specific to the target machineLink the machine code files into a runnable program (known as an EXE file)Debug or run the program Interpreting a Program Interpreting a program is a much faster process thats helpful for novice programmers when editing and testing their code. These programs run slower than compiled programs. The steps to interpret a program are: Write or edit the programDebug or run the program using an interpreter program Java and C# Both Java and C# are semi-compiled.  Compiling Java generates bytecode that is later interpreted by a Java virtual machine. As a result, the code is compiled in a two-stage process.   C# is compiled into Common Intermediate Language, which is then run by the Common Language Runtime part of the .NET framework, an environment that supports just-in-time compilation. The speed of C# and Java is almost as fast as  a true compiled language. As far as speed goes, C, C, and C# all are sufficiently speedy for games and operating systems. Programs on a Computer From the moment you turn on your computer, it is running programs, carrying out instructions, testing  RAM and accessing the operating system on its drive. Each and every operation that your computer performs has instructions that someone had to write in a programming language. For example, the Windows 10 operating system has roughly 50 million lines of code. These had to be created, compiled and tested; a long and complex task. Programming Languages Now In Use Top programming languages for PCs are Java and C with C# close behind and C holding its own. Apple products use Objective-C and Swift programming languages. There are hundreds of small programming languages out there, but other popular programming languages include: PythonPHPPerlRubyGoRustScala There have been many attempts to automate the process of writing and testing programming languages by having computers write computer programs, but the complexity is such that, for now, humans still write and test computer programs. The Future for Programming Languages Computer programmers tend to use programming languages they know. As a result, the old tried-and-true languages have hung around for a long time. With the popularity of mobile devices, developers may be more open to learning new programming languages. Apple developed Swift to eventually replace Objective-C, and Google developed Go to be more efficient than C. Adoption of these new programs has been slow, but steady.