Equality and Property: Locke v Marx - Essay Example

Political Philosophy How and its legitimate use of physical force came into being is a controversial for researchers.Political philosophers like Hobbs (1588-1679), Locke (1632-1704), Rousseau (1712-1778) and others proposed their own different convictions on Social Contract Theory, as a device used to justify the political authority. According to them, political power originated from a pre political natural condition through a gradual development of Social Contract. This pre political natural condition is termed as ‘state of nature’. Although the theorists agree that people were to renounce their liberty for the sake of social contract, regarding the issues like state of nature and subsequent development of social contract, they are deeply at odds. State of nature: Best Account Hobbs introduced a state of nature which has certain horrific features. According to him, human beings are at incessant conflict or war. This war is visible at every sphere of life since the individual level to the international level. However in my opinion, Hobbs offers the best account of the state of nature. An array of examples could be given for supporting his view. Conflicts between the individuals, between ethnic groups, between nations all represent the basic nature of human propensity to fight. This endless insecurity made the social contract inevitable for maintaining peace. As compared to Hobbs, Locke’s approach to state of nature is rather mild. He states that people lived under a law of nature before the emergence of political power. Since they were self centered and lacked proper interpretation of right and wrong, inevitably conflicts occurred. In order to protect the individual interests they developed social contract initially in the form of society and further government. Rousseau was against the theories of the other two. According to him, natural human beings are neither good nor bad with limited reasoning capacity. If they think that government is their own, they would act in favor of that and therefore according to him, state is the result of dominance of the rich over poor and anything against the general will is against the human freedom. All these theories were criticized by Hegel. He proposed an extremely different opinion to defend the political power of state. According to him, state is not inherently the foe of man; instead, it is the system that realizes and defines his role as a citizen (Hinchman, 257). Hegel criticized the view that liberty existed before the establishment of the state. However, Hobbs theory stands up to this criticism for its logical relevance and live examples of ‘war of all against all’. Equality and Property: Locke v Marx The debate on equality and property acquisition is also split into different accounts. According to the Marxian view, equality has to be acquired through legal enforcement or class struggle. He envisages the economic, political, religious, and sexual equality of individuals which seems to be quite dysfunctional in the real world. However the Lockeian concept of equality is rather feasible and it holds most fair account of equality and private property. There is no disagreement between Marx and Locke regarding the essential equality of human beings. The disparity lies in the strategic approaches for attaining it. Locke’s concept of equality is gospel oriented; whereas morality is not a concern to Marxian theory. In other words, Marxian equality of a classless society is not a practical idea because we can not expect people working relentlessly under a political setup where everything is owned and operated by state. According to Marx, the right to property inevitably results in extreme economic, social and political inequalities which are both inhuman and unjust (Smith, 56). However, the equality he purports only aims at the outcomes rather than the standards. Equal standards can be accomplished only by hard work and creativity. In contrast, laziness and ineffectiveness also can make the so called equality. Among these, the latter must be result of Marxian concept on equality. Through class struggle the rich can be brought down to the repulsive conditions of the rest of the society to establish equality; as if one wrecks the garage to fit a car. To Locke property is not a material portion but only the relationship between an individual and a thing. It exists in the world by natural law. Therefore how property can be acquired and what the limit of acquisition is also have been determined by the same nature. As in Smith (1985), Locke knows that the right to property, combined with the existence of money means, there will be an inequality of private possessions and it is a ‘tacit and voluntary consent of men’. Smith further states that, as Lock envisage a structure that includes inequalities in political power would win majority approval and is perfectly legitimate. Best Account of Sovereign Among the three theories Locke’s account of sovereign is the best and logical one. Unlike the other theories it is an optimistic view; and according to Locke the state of nature where human beings, even though self-centered , are co-operative in maintaining social harmony. In order to safeguard their personal interests they wanted an interpreter or sovereign to determine right and wrong. This condition inevitably led to the organized form of society. A social setup was essential to avoid any form of conflict and to resolve dilemma. Regarding sovereign, Locke opposed the view of Hobbs’ attributing sovereignty to single monarch because according to him, it would harm the freedom of people. Lock envisioned a limited sovereign which would govern, protect and enforce the law of people. To protect individual interests and liberty sovereignty must be vested on a group of representatives who would interrelate among each other, enter a social contract, make laws, and enforce them (Jones, 45). Sovereign must be limited because according to Locke, humans are autonomous having God given rights. They have reason and reflection to determine the right and wrong. Since variance in opinion might lead to conflict, there is sovereign who is responsible to the will of people, to determine the justice. To Hobbs social contract was only for the establishment of security and relief from chaos. That security and peace could be achieved only when people are afraid of punishment under sovereign. Rousseau’s concept tends to emphasis on liberty and common good. “When majority is not willing in accordance with the general, freedom does not exist” (Wokler, 139). Best concept of Freedom According to Locke, no individual has more power over others; instead a natural equality is truly present at least in an abstract form. His concept of freedom is an enlightenment doctrine which has certain internal aspects. “Locke defines freedom as the property of a rational agent whereby he has the power to act or not to act according to the preference or directions of his own mind, i.e. in accord with his will” (Rogers, 103). Therefore, sovereign is to interpret the will of people, and the freedom to act or not to act is ultimately the choice of individual. Moreover, human beings are rational enough to anticipate or reflect the subsequent outcomes of their acts. Social contract is not intended to curtail the natural freedom of human beings but to avoid possible conflicts while enjoying it. Fear of punishment or any sort of compulsion from the part of sovereign must not be the reason behind individual acts. Thus by offering rather reliable and practical ideas Locke holds the outstanding concept of freedom in its all sense. Comparison with other two theories would make this opinion more clear. As Pelczynski (1984) states, Hegel conceives freedom always in a social context, or more accurately in the context of human interaction. The structure of such interaction constitutes the context of freedom in which it becomes something concrete and definite, an actuality rather than a mere idea. He criticizes the view of other theorists for considering the state as an obstacle to freedom. According to Hegel’s view freedom makes sense only in the context of an established social and cultural milieu (Hinchman, 257). Therefore, in the presence of sovereign freedom and individual identity is more secure. As compared to the theories of Locke and Hegel, Mills view on individual freedom is highly controversial. In his opinion human beings are at incessant struggle to attain their freedom because they confront with various socio, economic, political factors that restrict freedom. Moreover, he finds people’s interests conflict with each other in general life. He questioned the view that majority had a right to enforce their ideas on others. He purports that sovereign must not question the freedom of individuals to determine the morality of their acts by themselves. Deficiency of Harm Principle Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’ is relevant to be discussed in this context. According to this theory government can exercise power over an individual only to prevent harm to others. Their freedom to indulge in victimless crimes should not be restricted. In a sense, he is against legal enforcement of morality. Sarcastically Mill’s theory has failed to provide a practicably limiting condition on political authority. “Harm principle’s institutional deficiencies derive directly from describing criminal law’s proper limits in terms of the consequences of individual conduct which is to be immunized against punishment”( Dripps, 1998). He has failed to properly deal with many forms of harm. To illustrate, if the law supports the Millian theory that a person can not be accused for the immoral thoughts, it ultimately encourages immorality which would result in immoral activities or crimes. In fact there are many things which can not be enforced only by laws. The socially approved practices and traditions have their own significance in a culture. For instance, the practices like homosexuality and abortion have been disapproved for centuries. The Harm Principle has far reaching adverse effects on the society. The absence of moral enforcement would gradually engulf the social setup. Obviously government can not think that law has no business in shaping the moral behaviour and thought of the individuals. The theory conflicts with many other realities too. For example, majority of people pay greater value to the pleasure and wellbeing of their family members than seeking their own happiness. Very often people admit pains for the sake of others for they value truth and other intrinsic qualities greater than the highest happiness. Therefore, political authority can not be restricted from enforcing moral values. Original Position justifies General Will Rawls introduced his theory of Original Position against the Utilitarian concept of average welfare or maximum happiness. Obviously it was an extended idea of Kantian doctrine and further grounded on the General Will of Rousseau. For example, Rousseau believed that law legitimately appear only from the sovereignty of People. They should have direct involvement in legislation and apply the law equally to all. Therefore he stated “the general will to be truly such, should be general in its object as well as in its essence; that it should come from all to apply to all” (Contract Social I I.4). In the state of nature according to Rousseau individual interests are morally opposed. Yet in settled political communities there is an overriding interest all will agree with (Levine, 155). Rawls’ concept goes even beyond Rousseau’s. He envisages that the people in the state of nature of Original Position would limit pursuit of self interest and further seek happiness of others (Kilcullen 1996). Rawls revised the doctrine of Rousseau and concluded that interests of majority may sometimes dominate the interests of minority. However if it continues, the minority would seek other alternatives of sovereign. Although always being impartial or partial would not be practical, instead of the utilitarian concept of maximized wellbeing maintaining a healthy balance of individual welfare can be reasonable. It can be possible only through generally accepted rules. In this aspect he uses the term the ‘veil of ignorance’. The egoist people in his Original Position would choose principles only to favour others. What restricts their egoism is their ignorance: they are not allowed to know what arrangement favours them over others. (Kilcullen, 1996) To conclude, irrespective of various disagreements and gruelling debates, all these political philosophers have highly contributed to the modern concept of welfare state. Various issues like human nature, how human developed social contract, how political power originated, what is an ideal sovereign are some of the highly controversial subjects even for today’s researchers. The eminent philosophers, through their most influential theories kindled the light of political renaissance. Still the subject is wide enough for further research. Works Cited Dripps.“The Liberal Critique of the Harm Principle”.Criminal Justice Ethics, vol.17,1998 Hinchman L P. Hegel’s Critique of the Enlightenment. University Press of Florida, 1984. Jones. Modern Political Thinkers and Ideas: An Historical Introduction. Routledge, 2002. Kilcullen. Rawls: the Original Position. Macqarie University. 1996. 2nd August 2009 http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l13.html Levine. The General Will: Rousseau, Marx, Communism. Cambridge University Press,1993. Pelczynski. Political Community and Individual Freedom in Hegal’s Philosophy of State. 1984. 2nd August 2009 http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/pelczyns.htm Smith R M. Liberalism and American Constitutional Law. Harvard University Press,1985 Wokler, Trinity College (University of Cambridge). Rousseau and Liberty. Manchester University Press, 1995 Read More