Freedom and Tyranny

While I did not have the opportunity to enter into a discussion with Locke himself, I instead focused on finding points in the text which seemed rather self evident now, but wouldn't have been. First was the concept of freedom he presented, specifically that if someone hindered ones freedom in any way, they would by necessity be be planning on taking everything else to. It struck me as opposing previous views, and prevailing logic at the time that slaves could and should be content with their lot as it was where they belonged, and not be in "a state of war continued" against their master. He does say that a contract between the two would nullify the slavery aspect and turn it into drudgery. The question is then, would the slave no longer be considered a slave by Locke if (s)he did anything that the master asked that didn't directly let them live longer? How implicit or explicit would the contract have to be according to Locke?

Significant is that Locke uses many words and phrases in the same manner we would now use them commonly, and different from how they have been in the past. Specifically tyrant, for example, which he lays out is a ruler(s) who is not governed by the laws of the land and steps beyond the role given to him by the public. It will be interesting to see if this way of viewing tyranny continues to change in the literature or that it has remained relatively fixed since this time period. At this point I feel its more likely that this is the definition we use because of how often Locke was cited in the beginning of our country's history, and not because his definition became prevailing throughout future literature.

Where Do Property Rights Really Come From?

I am trying a little something different this week. While I’d like to blabber on what I’ve just read, I realize that no one really wants to read it. So I decided to go out and interview John Locke. There was no gurantee he was listening to my prayers that day, but he gave me a ring and granted my own phone interview. Think Glubdubdrib, only real.

What follows is a relevant excerpt from my interview.

John Locke: My wife’s harp playing has gotten a lot better. You know, they finally gave her a different cloud than my own.

Thomas Hamed (rolls eyes): Really?

JL: Yeah. Now I can have her other angel friends come over.

TH: That’s awesome! Listen, I wanted to ask you a few questions about your philosophy.

JL: Go for it.

TH: You see, I read The Second Treatise, and have to say I agree with your conclusions.

JL: How so?

TH: I agree with your conclusions. I agree that man has an inherent right to property, and that he should form civil society with other men to protect those property rights.

JL: Yes.

TH: You said the right to property comes from man’s industry. Elaborate on that.

JL: Yes, well, you hit the nail right on the head. Let’s say you are a native in America.

TH: Doesn’t work these days. They’re gone

JL: Okay, let’s say you are a native deep in the Amazon, where no one has reached you. You live off nature’s bounty, for she provides you with everything. Alack, you need not improve the land. You do not inherently own it, but you don’t need to. You are in a state of nature, and being that things are not as dense, you can live off nature’s bounty and never be in conflict with your neighbors. There’s no need to assign property, nor to mitigate disputes.

TH: Sounds logical. Tell me, why does right necessarily flow from industry?

JL: Because, well, it seems functional to me. Take my example of the water in the pitcher. Surely, the water in a fountain is common, but that’s only because it doesn’t do much. It’s just a bunch of molecules sitting there. In the pitcher, the man has intention to drink it. A similar concept applies to my wife’s lady friends.

TH: But you say that the right of property is natural? Why?

JL (long pause): You preposterous mongrel! You rogue! Why do you think it’s a law of nature? Didn’t God give you the will to survive? Natural law is based on what you do in a state of nature, and what God has given you.

TH: But let’s just say I had no intention of survival. Let’s just say I left the water in the fountain not out of altruism, but because I had no real will to survive. It’d strip me of any pretense to need the water to live. Then what? Do I still have an inherent right to the water?

JL: If you take it, yes. You grabbed it with your own resources, and are therefore entitled to it.

TH: That doesn’t tell me where the right came from. What if you come along and drink the water from my pitcher without asking? That’s wrong to you, but why is it wrong? What dictates how it is right and how it is wrong?

Locke said something or another, and then hung up. So I am confused. He’s too wedded to his own ideas to help me understand. Where does he derive his rights from? The Bible? It’s a great source, but let’s just say my god didn’t leave behind a sacred text. Then what?