Locke and Rousseau
Both Locke and Rousseau propose a theory of the conditions that must be satisfied by the acquisition of private property to be legitimate or just. Provide a rigorous examination of their respective arguments, making sure you provide a careful analysis of the precise meaning and implications of their proposals. Which of the two theories is more compelling?
Sample Solution
Thesis Statement: Locke and Rousseau offer compelling arguments surrounding the conditions necessary for legitimate acquisition of private property; ultimately, Locke’s theory is more persuasive.
John Lock and Jean-Jacques Rousseau presented two distinct theories on the legitimacy of private property in their respective works, Second Treatise of Government by Locke and On the Social Contract by Rousseau. While both theories are compelling in their own right, a closer examination reveals that Locke’s views are more convincing.
To begin with, Locke argues that private property can only become legitimate if it is acquired through “mixing one’s labor with unowned resources of nature” (Locke 1690). This means that an individual has to work for something before he/she can claim it as his or her own. For example, when a farmer clears a piece of land to grow crops, his labor allows him to gain exclusive ownership over it. To this end, individuals have natural rights to acquire “as much as they need” from nature without depriving others from also exercising their claims (Lock 1690). Thus, according to Lock’s theory, any kind of appropriation must be based on consent and not interfere with another person’s right over resources so that everyone benefits equally from these properties.
On the other hand, Rousseau proposes a contrasting view where acquisition needs approval from society rather than just an individual claiming something through labor; he asserts that all members should agree upon certain rules prior to allowing anyone access to unowned stuff (Rousseau 1762). He also believes that any form of domination or exploitation arising out of unequal power structures should be prevented at all costs. In contrast to Locke who gives priority towards protecting individual rights while acquiring possessions collectively by people living in society , Rousseau believes collective will should always come first before anything else .
Overall , both theories are quite convincing but after careful consideration , it is evident that Locke’s proposal presents a more satisfactory approach regarding acquisition of private property since it does not ignore individual desires yet maintains balance between them by ensuring no one interferes unjustly with another person’s rights .
