AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Diest TKO,

What do you think is Locke's definition of "need?"

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Quote:
Locke says it is dishonest to have more property than you need.

What does "more property than you need" mean?
What is your definition of "need?"
Who decides what you need?
Who shall select the criteria to be applied for determining what you need?

A Webster Dictionary definition of "need:"

Quote:
a lack of something requisite (ESSENTIAL, NECESSARY), desireable, or useful

You do know when (and where) Webster lived, ican? And when and where Locke lived and wrote?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Yes, Walter, I know where and when Webster and Locke lived and wrote. But all that is irrelevant to what is Locke's actual definition of "need"?

What do you, Walter, think is Locke's actual definition of "need"?

Please do not dodge this question with assertions or questions about what you think I think is Locke's actual definition of "need." Either you know and can say, or you do not know and cannot say.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

No, I don't know what his definition of 'need' was.. (But I could ask him tomorrow afternoon, though I'm not sure if he will answer.) And I didn't study English, so I don't know what 'need' generally meant in his time period.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, thank you for that excellent honest answer.

I don't know what Locke meant by the word "need. You don't know what Locke meant by the word "need" (before tomorrow afternoon ~~ if then). I bet no one here in a2k knows what Locke meant by the word "need."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Locke's definition of "need" is pretty clearly laid out in his 2nd Treatise.

Quote:

He was only to look, that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others. And indeed it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of. If he gave away a part to any body else, so that it perished not uselesly in his possession, these he also made use of. And if he also bartered away plums, that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted not the common stock; destroyed no part of the portion of goods that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselesly in his hands

Quote:

Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others; what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Locke's definition of "need" is pretty clearly laid out in his 2nd Treatise.

Quote:
He was only to look, that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others. And indeed it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of. If he gave away a part to any body else, so that it perished not uselesly in his possession, these he also made use of. And if he also bartered away plums, that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted not the common stock; destroyed no part of the portion of goods that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselesly in his hands

Quote:
Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others; what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.

You have to remember this is in respect of property existing prior to government which is what Fox was arguing that Locke said it existed prior to government so government can't take property.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I haven't spent much time considering how John Locke would define 'need'. Any time actually. But I do know that the principles he put forth must be considered in his culture and in his time and experience. He took the view that land that nobody had claimed or worked was owned by nobody. Once a man takes unowned land and devotes his time and labor to make the land productive, the land becomes his property and is inviolate. The only limit on this process is that the man should claim no more property than he is able to make productive.

He was far more class conscious than were many of his contemporaries and assigned moral responsibility to the rich and poor, but only in the sense that all would have their unalienable rights, which were from God, protected. That was the purpose for people to organize themselves into groups with all subjects to certain laws/rules.

In Locke's view, the goal of all education is to accomplish welfare and prosperity of the nation. He defined the nations's welfare and prosperity as accomplishment of personal happiness and social usefulness of all the people. I think any form of socialism would have been foreign to him.

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados, your excerpts include three specifications of what one should take or keep, none of which defines "need" in a way that provides anyone other than each individual a way to decide for him or herself what he or she needs at any particular time. The individual is given only these guidelines: Take or keep only that which is,
(1) less than or equal to whatever one thinks one can make use of.
(2) less than or equal to that whichever one thinks is not too much
(3) less than or equal to whatever one thinks one needs.

In other words, Obama and McCain should protect each individual's right to decide to take or keep no more than the individual thinks he or she thinks is not more than he or she can use, not too much, and not more than one needs
.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

That's close. I think what he was saying was that the individual should not claim more than what he or she can make use of or that will be useful. He did not put a limit on how much that would be for any individual. Nor was there any suggestion of any appropriate limit on productivity. There is nothing in Locke's philosophy that suggests that the government should dictate what any individual was allowed to have or how productive any individual should be, but he was pretty clear that what property people have, they should work for, and whatever property they held was inviolate. Nobody was entitled to the property of another.

Within that framework, Obama suggests that the productive should enrich the nonproductive while McCain suggests that the way should be cleared for everyone to be able to work for the property they have. McCain is far more Lockean of the two.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

I'm not the one invoking Locke.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

but he was pretty clear that what property people have, they should work for, and whatever property they held was inviolate. Nobody was entitled to the property of another.

I would love to see where you think Locke says government can't take property through taxation.
Locke says this..

Quote:

Thirdly, They must not raise taxes on the property of the people, without the consent of the people, given by themselves, or their deputies. And this properly concerns onlysuch governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves.

So, in instances where the people do chose the legislature then the legislature is not constrained from raising taxes by Locke.

Quote:

Sec. 140. It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them:

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Within that framework, Obama suggests that the productive should enrich the nonproductive while McCain suggests that the way should be cleared for everyone to be able to work for the property they have. McCain is far more Lockean of the two.

You have not provided a single quote from Locke to support your misreading of him. I want to see where you think Locke says what you have said. Provide his words and we will compare the context of what Locke says to what you have claimed.

0 Replies

@parados,

Locke's view of taxes was that the government can rightfully levy taxes on the people equitably for the common welfare--that is for the mutual good of all--in order to do what government must do. And he was quite clear that such taxes are by the authority of the people for the purposes assigned to government.

Locke would have been appalled at any suggestion that the government should confiscate the rightful property of Citizen A and give it to Citizen B for Citizen B's exclusive use. Such a concept was completely foreign to him.

At no point in this discussion have I ever suggested that the government did not need to collect taxes. But conservastism limits such taxes to what the government needs to carry out its Constitutionally mandates function and no more. Look no further than Locke's words that you posted as evidence of that.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Ok.. so first of all.. Let's define your taking from A to give to B for B's exclusive use.

Locke would be appalled at what? Your hypothesis? Or appalled that it really happens?

1 Reply

@parados,

Locke would have been appalled that the government would presume to take property from Citizen A without Citizen A's consent and give that property to Citizen B for Citizen B's exclusive use. In this case Citizens A and B can be individuals or can be symbolic for groups of people.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

At no point in this discussion have I ever suggested that the government did not need to collect taxes. But conservastism limits such taxes to what the government needs to carry out its Constitutionally mandates function and no more. Look no further than Locke's words that you posted as evidence of that.

Could you provide Locke's words that you think support your statement?

So far you have not supplied any quote from Locke. Why is that Fox? Certainly someone as well versed as you are can find a copy of Locke's second treatise.

Here is one online -
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

Locke certainly doesn't seem to restrict elected legislative government other than to say those passing the laws should also be subject to them to prevent arbitrary abuse.

Locke says this

Quote:

the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.

Since the first and fundamental law is to preserve every person in the society, do you think Locke is saying we shouldn't give food to those that can't or won't care for themselves? Food is property certainly under the meaning Locke states earlier. I hardly think you can argue that Locke says the public good is to let people starve if they have committed no crime against property of someone else.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Citizen B never touches Citizen A's money Fox. never.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Locke would have been appalled that the government would presume to take property from Citizen A without Citizen A's consent and give that property to Citizen B for Citizen B's exclusive use. In this case Citizens A and B can be individuals or can be symbolic for groups of people.

So you have said repeatedly but you have not provided one quote.

Back up your statement with Locke's words. I don't think you can because I can find nothing in Locke that does so. Your argument becomes meaningless without providing something from Locke that at least hints at your statement.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Citizen B never touches Citizen A's money Fox. never.

T
K
O

Money is merely a substitute for other perishable property according to a Locke.

Quote:

Sec. 47. And thus came in the use of money, some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that by mutual consent men would take in exchange for the truly useful, but perishable supports of life

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know