Critically Evaluating Locke's Two Provisos - Book Report/Review Example

Critically evaluate Locke's two provisos and consider what relevance, if any, they have to the current debate over global warming. In this discussion, considering Locke's two provisos, the contemporary relevance of Locke's approach to property rights and ownership could be studied especially within the context of recent legal framework and according to the subject of this essay on global warming issues as well. The discussion here traces Locke's provisos, issues related to property rights and labor and the relevance or application of Locke's theory for explaining the consequences of global warming. Keywords: Global warming, Locke's provisos, Property rights, world resources, labor. Introduction: Global warming is especially a moral issue as it indicates an unbridled flow of capital and selfish use of world's resources leaving a dangerous world for the future generations. As Locke's theory could be relevant for intellectual property rights as well which indicates fair use policy, Locke's provisos are equally relevant as a moral philosophy that could control selfish exploration of the world's resources that is solely responsible for global warming. In this essay, an analysis is drawn on Locke's two provisos on the control and possession of property and also reveals Locke's philosophy on the value of labor. Locke's Provisos, Global Warming and Property Rights In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke presented his theory of property rights and delineated certain aspects of property distribution. Locke suggests that private ownership of property is a given or assumed fact as it is a person's right and obligation to possess world resources (Locke, 1966). However if a person uses his own labor into a particular work, it becomes his possession and an individual's labor will separate what a person can own in common and what he can privately own. Locke's spoilage proviso states that people should use and possess only that which they can use before it gets spoilt or rather to make proper use of their own possessions without waste or spoilage. However whatever a man possesses due to the fruits of his own labor should belong exclusively to him. The spoilage proviso shows that a person should possess only that much that he needs or can make use of without waste (Sreenivasan as reviewed by Morris, 1999). Locke's second rule is the sufficiency proviso that limits the amount of property or possession that someone can take so that individuals can possess only to the extent that there is enough and as good property or goods still remain to be possessed by the others. This shows that Locke envisaged that there should be enough land for everyone to equally possess property (Weymark, 1975). If there is not enough land, then non-owners should labor on other land already owned. Locke considered that possessing and owning land and accumulating capital could help in increasing human happiness and a nation where everything is equally distributed among and owned by its citizens would be ideal and more prosperous (Locke, 1966). People are naturally in a better state of mind and have a better quality of life when they possess landed property and such property is also taken better care of. So when people possess land they make it more productive and according to Locke, it is not the land itself but the work or labor that people put into it that finally influences quality of life, living conditions, prosperity and property rights (Locke, 1966). Private property is attainable by means of money and barter and property possession is seen as a natural right of man who as Locke emphasizes is entitled to control a part of world's resources. Even if a person does not own piece of land directly, the efforts he puts in into the land as labor gives him something in return which can be considered as possession owned indirectly through the land. Although Capitalism as a theory and practice led to wastage, Locke's philosophy was geared to do away with the pitfalls of capitalism and Locke emphasized on utilitarianism and common good rather than common ownership (Locke, 1966). Locke however argues for unabashed capitalism and the fact that he distinguishes between owners and non owners of land who nevertheless gains from the land but have no direct claim on the property, shows that Locke demarcated between the higher and lower strata of people or the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as in any capitalistic society. Thus Locke's emphasis on property as a natural right is intricately associated with the property a person possesses and the output of labor (Weymark, 1975; Bogart 1985). Locke focused on how labor could add to value of a thing and Locke developed a labor theory of the difference in value. According to Locke, land acquired from a private interest yet maintaining the two provisos has more to benefit than land acquired and used by common interest. However land used for common use should be considered as joint property. On what is considered as the Lockean proviso, individuals are allowed and encouraged to possess property only to the limit that they can leave enough for other, so along with capitalism, some amount of equality and socialistic view is also seen in Locke's philosophy. Although Locke stresses on the need to increase and acquire wealth, he remained noncommittal on his approach to social equality and is thus a not completely socialist philosopher and more inclined towards capitalism. Bogart (1985) suggested that the Lockean proviso is more of a principle of justice in property rights and allows acquisition of property justifiably leaving enough for others. Locke's provisos that restrict the amount to be possessed according to need and keeping property for others seem to be focused on the individual yet have a broader social and utilitarian view. Morris (1999) reviews Sreenivasan and suggests that Locke's case and argument for the legitimacy of private property consists of two separate parts - namely an argument that 'individual appropriation need not violate original rights of common ownership of land and an account of the legitimating power of labor' (Morris, 1999, p.405) Considering Locke's provisos and approach to world resources, it may be asked what are the rights of the current generation that tend to exploit world resources and what are the obligations that we have towards future generations. It is also worth examining whether there is a fundamental difference or inequality in distribution and ownership of property and how Locke's provisos relate to this inequality (Bogart, 1985). Locke himself never had problems with the inequality factor in his argument which differentiated between classes yet such inequalities may have naturally led to unjust appropriation and usage of global environmental resources with private ownership actually spoiling some of world's otherwise public resources either directly or indirectly. So what can be done and how do we rectify this situation in the context of problems in global warming and can Locke's provisos help in this regard. Within the legal context, Clarke (1997) has distinguished between property law and the application of the legal structure to acquire family assets suggesting that individual assets as Locke's provisos would suggest may have a bearing on property law but property law itself should be seen within a broader framework and have larger utilitarian applications as well. Locke's provisos mainly highlighted the balance between personal /private and public property and suggested that even a personal property should be acquired considering what is available, left or in use within the public domain. This naturally relates to the contemporary property law which emphasizes on a distribution of family assets. Conclusion: However the issue of global warming remains rather unclear even in the context of Locke's provisos as Locke's emphasis on properties remaining for common good and utilitarian purposes may not be completely followed within the limits of modern approach to capitalism. Thus the face of capitalism along with property law has changed in recent times and Locke's provisos although capitalistic having a strong factor of responsibility and utilitarianism which may not be found in today's selfish pursuit of wealth. Thus it can be said that in order to restore balance in possession and appropriate use of wealth Lockean provisos can still provide valuable insights and could be used for the study of capitalism and global warming and the impact of economic and global environmental changes on present and future generations. Bibliography BOGARTJ. H. (1985),Lockean Provisos and State of Nature Theories Ethicsvol.95,pp.828-836 Clarke A & Kohler P(2005), Property Law: Commentary and Materials (Law in Context) Butterworths Clarke, A 'Property Law: Re-establishing Diversity' Current Legal Problems 1997 Vol 50 Law and Opinion at the End of the Twentieth Century, 119 Cotterell (1986), 'The Law of Property and Legal Theory' in Legal Theory and Common Law ed Twining Kohler P (2004) 'Common Property and Private Trusts' in Locality and Identity Lawson and Rudden (2002) Law of Property 3rd ed, Clarendon Locke, John. (1956) The Second Treatise of Government :an essay concerning the true original, extent and end of Civil Government and a letter concerning toleration. [S.l.] :Blackwell Locke, John. (1966) Two treatises of civil government. [S.l.] :Dent, McGillivray Donald and Holder Jane (2007) Locality, environment and law: the case of town and village greens International Journal of Law in Context 3: 1-17 Cambridge University Press Morris Christopher W.(1999) The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property by Gopal Sreenivasan Mind, New Series, Vol. 108, No. 430 ,pp. 405-407 Weymark, John A. (1975) Money and locke's theory of property. [S.l.] :University of British Columbia and University of Pennsylvania - Department of Economics Read More