Rand, Locke, Aquinas, and Jesus on Property
Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
Ayn Rand opined that Property Rights were an absolute necessity for freedom
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."
It surprised me to learn in Andrew Napolitano's Suicide Pact Page 13 that both Thomas Aquinas and John Locke thought of property as relative to need. He quoted Aquinas "...the natural law requires whatever things a person possesses in superabundance be used to help the poor, and further stated that such goods may be taken by a needy person in a time of imminent danger." And Locke "...in a state of nature, the needy have a right to the '[s]urplusage of their fellows."
And in Matthew 19:24 Jesus is quoted as saying that "...Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Now I expected that Jesus and Aquinas would uphold an altruistic view of need versus property rights but Locke's observation has thrown me for a loop given that he is so often quoted as a philosophic founding father of America.
I have not located any source wherein Jesus, Aquinas, or Locke attempted to define what they meant by Rich or Needy. Have any of you? Are Locke and Obama on the same page as to redistribution?
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."
It surprised me to learn in Andrew Napolitano's Suicide Pact Page 13 that both Thomas Aquinas and John Locke thought of property as relative to need. He quoted Aquinas "...the natural law requires whatever things a person possesses in superabundance be used to help the poor, and further stated that such goods may be taken by a needy person in a time of imminent danger." And Locke "...in a state of nature, the needy have a right to the '[s]urplusage of their fellows."
And in Matthew 19:24 Jesus is quoted as saying that "...Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Now I expected that Jesus and Aquinas would uphold an altruistic view of need versus property rights but Locke's observation has thrown me for a loop given that he is so often quoted as a philosophic founding father of America.
I have not located any source wherein Jesus, Aquinas, or Locke attempted to define what they meant by Rich or Needy. Have any of you? Are Locke and Obama on the same page as to redistribution?
Interesting... I am unfamiliar with these particulars and would like to know more. I wonder if this as related "in a state of nature" applies to a primitive state.. a state of nature before there was exchange or cultivation/effort or input on the part of the creation. Certainly before property rights in a state of nature it would be wrong to hoard the natural fruits/sustenance of the land (perhaps to allow them to rot) without your ownership. Locke defined ownership and property as that which was improved by one's effort. One would have to cultivate or otherwise improve upon nature to produce more than nature provided and gain ownership in this fashion. It would then no longer be in a "state of nature."
Just a thought...
Regards,
O.A.
For Locke "state of nature" meant that time before political institutions were invented.
"John Locke (1632-1704) wrote one of the most powerful defenses of individual liberty in his Second Treatise of Government. According to Locke, in the state of nature (i.e. before the appearance of political institutions) human beings enjoyed what he called “perfect freedom” to enjoy their persons and properties “as they think fit”:" This from
http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/...
His Second treatise begins with Adam in Eden in Genesis. So I am not sure if you, he and I would have the same definition of a "primitive state"
However, having been driven back to the Second treatise by JudgeNap, I can heartily recommend
Chap. II Of the State of Nature and
Chap. V Of Property
at http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat....
All the best
Joe
Understood. I have read locke's 1st and 2nd Treatise as well as his "A Letter of Toleration" all three contained in a single volume in my library.
I believe the full context is most helpful in providing clarity.
Locke, Chap. V Of Property, Sec. 27 is most instructive.
" Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men,
yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right
to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may
say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that
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.
It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it
hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right
of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the
labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at
least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."
I believe this supports much of what is congruent with my belief and reinforces the argument. What was once common to all men does not remain
so after man has altered the state of nature to an object or resource. Whether it is moral to distribute the excess is secondary to right or ownership of property.
It is clear that once one's labor is added it has been "removed from the common state nature" or a "primitive state
It has now become the property of he that has added to it his labor. Now the final sentence points out a proviso: "....no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." this is subjective in interpretation. what is enough and what is as good, left in common for others. Here it could be that land available to others yet unclaimed or natures uncultivated bounty... Hard to say. One thing is clear, he is recognizing property by virtue of improvement and added labor, individual ownership and corollary rights of disposal of same.
The Second Treatise is a great/essential read and once the entire document is read, full context for me, left me with a perspective most supportive of property rights once any establishment of a social order was realized.
Excellent inquiry and exchange,
Regards,
O.A.