Essential John Locke: The Right to Property
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 มี.ค. 2020
- For Locke, extending equal rights to all people included property rights, specifically self-ownership and the right to own one's own labour, which challenged conventional wisdom at the time that a King or Queen owned their subjects. Watch this video to learn more, and visit EssentialJohnLocke.org.
The idea that even some people today do not understand!
This is super helpful. More videos about his works please.
thank you!
I would like a more in-depth video for adults
What is the song that plays in the video?
I’ve heard it before in a short film.
What ought to happen with corporate stock, then? If I own stock in XYZ corporation, am I not entitled to receive my share of the company's profits (in the form of dividends) proportionate to my share of ownership?
awesome
There seems to be insinuation about how explorers and colonizers had the right to land from Indegenous people. Indegenous peoples could also use the same argument for having natural rights to their land. What would John Locke say about two groups using the land how they see fit for themselves?
Let's not leave out the Lockean Proviso that states that whilst individuals have a right to homestead private property from nature by working on it, they can do so only "at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others".[
My private property was taken by my neighbor who applied chemicals on it for over 5 years. He and his brother (the County Sheriffs detective) made public statements that I was involved in illegal drug activity, but that was not true and that could not provide any evidence to support that defamation of my character. Here is a link to show photo evidence if the personal injury that I suffered before I had no option but to stay at my home and die or flee and attempt to recover from the injury.
"You think you own whatever land you land on."
Yet, somehow, people believe that if you divest the "authority" of a king or queen amongst a number of politicians - it is somehow different because "muh, democracy" or "No taxation without representation" and other such rot. The fact that I own my body and whatever my body is involved in producing, doesn't change when you call it "government", instead of "king".
Did Locke say anything on money (medium of exchange) ? Is money a private property or public utility?
@@thekingofthings2002 Does money (as debt-credit) belong to banks (corporations) or government?
@@SusmitaBarua_mita he advocated real commodity money such as gold and silver which can be melted down for personal use. Not fiat rubbish ordained by government.
Are you a follower of the debt theory of money or of the metal theory of money? Any fiat is based on promises and trust.. everything else is (at best) advanced barter and normally deflationary (fiat can overcome this).
As for what our modern money is - it's promises based on trust between market participants. Those promises can be made by private individuals as well as public entities. It's 100% not a public utility - the benevolent monopoly force that violently enforces the rules that give a society trust is a public utility though..
when we say labor should have rights over the fruits of their labor then that itself goes against private property doesnt it?
no, because a worker is selling a SERVICE to a company.. doing work on some hardware.. never ever does the ownership of the hardware change hands there. Workers are service providers and being paid for their service.
Or do hairdressers get to own the head/individual they just dressed?
@@joansparky4439 The labor's service to a private enterprise and something like that of a hairdresser or a call center executive is different . What differentiates them is the carrying out of the service for production for further market exchange (M-C-M') vs for the personal USE value of the service. You can look at it in a simpler way, a common consumer of a service and a private firm are not equal by any measure, private ownership of the means of production means major undemocratic influence of a small group of people on the material conditions of the common people who don't own means of production. Instead I believe workers should have the right to control over what, how, when, where they produce goods and services for their use value, this is socialism in my understanding. I'm not a well read person so this comment did make me think a bit, thanks.
@@4m0d
Keep thinking.. if u get a haricut for a job interview or u work in a customer facing role - how is that haricut-for-further-market-exchange-principle gonna look like?
There is no difference, it's arbitrary only.
The reason for this is that this 'no means of production in private hands' tries to address a symptom and NOT a root cause / problem.
Love him
(The injunction watercolored and dated to March 22 (“So fleete not with their streame, let me excite Your military judgements to give light In safe securing of the residue, Or extirpation of that Indian crew”) is answered on November 30* (“In the law of nature and nations, a land never inhabited, by any, utterly derelicted and immemorially abandoned by the former inhabitants, becomes theirs that will possess it”, *dated to each of November 13 and 30) and again in Chapter V of Part ii of those promotional materials which have been called Tractatus de Gallico Morbico (the Indian’s claimed lack of agriculture and of money are offered as basis of the appraisal of proceeds from land as compared with those of “mankind ... here” (reversal mine) possibly not 1/240th of each of 5 quid) supplying a tiered rule of property for the Americas as expropriation, open season, in advance of and in harmony with the ethnologues of Bouquet, w/ profound respect and love, لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله)
they found *unclaimed* land in North America, i imagine the native Americans might have something to say about that
Those Indian's were not a united group. You act like they had some kind of government set up & were a united nation. Hell they even fought each other after Europeans & English arrived. The simple truth is the more advanced cultures won & the laws of nature worked out like its supposed to. Its strange I never hear of the ethnics groups that inhibited North America before those Indians you speak of. We dont know a lot but we do know they were conquered whipped off the map by those Natives you speak of.
They had died from smallpox.
@TheSadWoman did the natives keep records of the plot of lands and who it belongs to? The American continent was far too big for such a small population of simple illiterate tribesmen to administrate.
I'm sure they did, but they should've been better at war if they intended anything.
Native Americans aren't one United group and never were. They were well known to have killed entire tribes they conquered (i.e. genocide) and to have displaced the conquered peoples (i.e. moved them to reservations). What happened was tragic indeed and Christians would've been expected to not do the same, but what settlers did was in accordance to native american custom. AND most died from smallpox and other diseases, so yeah.
My question is how to obtain property if every place on earth is worked on by farmers who produce enought food for five people each with their land. If someone is born how do they get their right to property if they can not work any land?