Justice with Michael Sandel

Episode Four

Share this content

Join the Conversation

The spirited classroom debate doesn’t have to end when class is over. Share your thoughts with other viewers from around the world. Join the ongoing discussion or start your own. Ask a question or respond to ours:

1.Philosopher John Locke believes that your “unalienable right” to liberty does not include the right to kill yourself. Is he right? What does your liberty entitle you to do with yourself? Where do the limits come from?
2. John Locke believes that government, once it is set up, should be guided by the principle of majority rule. However, he also believes that the purpose of government is to protect people’s rights, including their “unalienable” right to property. What if these two goals conflict? What if a poor majority wants to tax a rich minority?

Public Discussion Circle

Comments (103)

(wobean) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 3:25 am

I don't think this is a very fair discussion of the self-ownership principle until anarchism is at least mentioned. Considering it's the only philosophy that actually follows the self-ownership principle to its logical conclusion.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 8:33 pm

I think it depends, wobean, on how seriously you take the notion of "self-possession." It would seem that the libertarians take it further than Locke, in that there are no restrictions as to what you can do with your person - such as selling themselves. And even according to Locke, the "social contract" can be dissolved to reinstate a (temporary) state of nature - if the government is deemed oppressive and unjust.

Another question: Is your conception of anarchism comparable to "state of nature"?

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 27, October 2009, 5:54 pm

As an anarchist myself, you are right. Libertarianism when brought to its logical end means the absent of any form of government no matter how small.

I was really disappointed last lecture when the Libertarian team dropped the ball in argument the for freedom from slavery.

Whenever I encounter obligations to society versus the morality of libertarianism I love to bring out the Socratic method to help guide the listener towards my line of reasoning.

"I would never dream of forcing you to not pay your taxes." (Because it would be immoral of me to force my opinions onto you under the self-ownership principle).

"Would it be morally correct of me to coerce you under the threat of imprisonment to not pay your taxes." (Hopefully not)

If the above two principles are justified than when taken to its logical end it should also work vice versa.

"Would you extend me the same courtesy if I didn't want to pay my taxes."

"If it it immoral of me coerce you to not pay your taxes than it should also follow that it would be immoral of you to force me to pay my taxes."

If the above last line is correct than governments have no moral justification to exist.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, April 2010, 9:27 am

wouldn't it be unfair if you took advantage of what the government offered with the taxpayer's money but you refuse to pay for its services? although you mentioned that you are an anarchist, you have to consider that we're all living in a society in which a government exists and the government carries out tasks such as laying out basic infrastructures which we utilize on an everday basis for instance roads, traffic signs and signal which are made from taxes. For someone to enjoy the benefit of such commodities but not contribute in help create such, seems unjust

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 5:45 am

Would taxation be Locke-justified if the commons were over-utilized -- that each person might at a given moment be taking more than their share? Say that the commons is given to the stewardship of government (possibly because the benefits of government are mixed among the shared good), and so, with also being empowered to define what is common, government shapes the share of common good to which each member is entitled and may demand debts against it be repaid.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 8:27 pm

Aren't you blurring categories here? What would it mean for the commons to have the stewardship of the government? If such were the case, wouldn't the commons be the de facto government?

(lazar) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 8:43 am

1. he is not right. liberty entitles me to do whatever preserves my natural rights (including that to life) and does not infringe on others' natural rights. however, right to life is just that, a right (entitlements or permissions), but not my obligation to live it.
reply

(thodelu) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 11:44 am

Geolibertarianism adequately satisfies Lockean proviso of 'leaving as much and as good for others', and also agrees with self ownership.
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 1:58 pm

I like this unalienable rights to life, liberty and property (given by Reason or God; as Locke said). But if the right to life means that you are not allowed to take your own life, then this right turns into a duty. Does this also mean that one has a duty to be free and to have (more) property? In that case Jefferson’s version (life, liberty and the pursue of happiness) seems to be an improvement - a duty to live, to be free and to be happy. ‘Property’ seems to be of a different category; it does not seem to be attached to human beings in the same way as life, liberty and happiness.
reply

(keddaw) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 7:05 am

There is no such thing as 'unalienable rights' as history has repeatedly proven. Intellectually we may say that such things exist but in the real world those with power can remove any rights they choose. At the end of the day the only unalienable rights we have are those we are willing to stand up and fight for. (says the pacifist coward...)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 3:27 pm

Jellie NL)

According to Locke, "property" is an extension of personhood. But of course Locke has a disclaimer to the effect that there must be enough of goods and/or property to go around so that no one would lack.

Roger Nowosielski
reply

(Greg) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:54 pm

Locke has a foundation from the perspective of "rights" to property, and that those rights cannot be taken away. However, it is clear that property itself (independent of the right to own it) can be taken away according to his evolutionary perspective of survival of the fittest. Even Locke needs Government and laws to protect his property and the right to own it. Locke further needs government limits on property to guarantee that no other player in the game can acquire all other property such that Locke’s survival is threatened.

(Greg) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:57 pm

Sorry Roger, changed my post a bit...what was that website with the modern french thinkers, I'd like to check it out. Thx

(Greg) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:23 pm

Critical to my argument is that self ownership implies the right to sell one's self into slavery. Hence a pathway for a few to own most everyone else. Are we so far from that in our post modern America?

The problem with Nozick's self ownership is that there are extremes of both norm(sanity and concern), and motivation(opinion and desire), among people within a society. Therefore there will be some few who will wind up owning most of those from the most insane (according to norm)to those who are sane yet have completely different values.

And much like we see in America today where resource ownership is seen skewed toward capitalists, an imbalance will arise where a few (affording to silently collude), wind up owning most everybody else, where humans are taken as a resource like other common capital, again much like we see Americans treated today by the wealthy financial elite.

At that extreme...where is the equality of freedom for all? Therefore Locke's philosophy conflicts in that our Democratic government along with the Constitution is set up to protect the weak from the power of the strong. Unalienable are rights to life and liberty (freedom from oppression), but property rights cannot be included as a limitless freedom. In support of my argument, it is clear that Nozick fails to see the forest for the trees as consideration of his self ownership philosophy shows. Evidenced by compelling current states of resource imbalance between the wealthy and poor...unequal divisions of justice will emerge, where the wealthy can further their positions since influence costs money.

Therefore it follows that Locke's philosophy is incomplete and incorrect since it fails the majority while benefitting the minority to have oppressive power over the majority.

Finally, in a Democracy where majority sets the rules, and still accounting for protection of minorities, limits on property hoarding should be allowed by taxation of the wealthy to establish limits on runaway inequality(oppressive powers). And further the government of the people, by the people, and for the people should establish, administer, and enforce those limiting taxes.
reply

(keddaw) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 7:08 am

You cannot assert that a part of self-ownership is the ability to sell yourself into slavery (OK, you can and just did) because at the point of sale you no longer own yourself, thus the idea of self ownership has been lost.

To 'own' onesself in this instance means the freedom to do as one wishes. Selling onesself into bondage removes this freedom, a freedom we all want and assert even for others - even those who have sold themselves into bondage.

(rogernovotny) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 5:57 pm

It's blogcritics.org

Look for the Politics section and put Bye-bey, Miss American Pie" in the search box, top right. Then click on the entry displayed, which should get you to the article in question, followed by the thread (we have over 1400 comments already, but we get into the meat (sort of) starting with about #100. And thanks for responding. Besides, you might find the site interesting in any case - we have plenty of writers on any number of topics.

Roger Nowosielski
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 21, September 2010, 2:49 pm

Some of those contracts are up in five too ten years so they would have to drop slavery all together under piece policy issues only if the contract is up only.

(rogernovotny) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 5:59 pm

Should be "Bye-bye . . .
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 6:04 pm

Well, rights are only unalienable says both Locke and Jefferson because they are endowed by the Creator.

What about one who does not believe in a creator? How can atheists believe in unalienable rights? It seems that without God there can be no justification for rights that exist prior to a state agreeing upon them. Is the result for atheist states simply the model we have in the USSR or China where human rights are ignored?

I want to believe in unalienable rights - how can I do that without God?

Also, please don't respond by saying 'Reason' - explain the reasoning (I don't think there is a suitable rationale sans God, so explain it!!).
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 7:32 pm

You and I are people with individual thoughts and beliefs of our own. The fact of our being conscience of our lives and our thoughts, creates self-ownership. In other words, because of my independent ability to think and reason as I choose, these thoughts should be able to be expressed freely, as long as they do not interfere with others free thoughts and execution of those thoughts. This is how I as an atheist believe in human rights that exist in nature.

(rogernovotny) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 8:09 pm

Very good question. The idea of unalienable rights does seem to hinge on the idea of a Creator. So for Locke, the Creator serves as a bedrock from which unalienable rights can be derived.

But think - the force of "unalienable" (in connection with rights) serves mainly to assert that a person is not in the position to bequeath them to anyone (such as selling themselves to slavery or committing suicide). And if that provision is important to you, then you seem to have a problem. If not, however, we can still insist on (certain) human rights being innate as a matter of value judgment. And I think Kant here provides the lead insofar as the Kantian categorical imperative stipulates that persons should be treated as ends (in themselves), never as means.

Are you comfortable enough with this resolution?

(Jelle NL) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 7:03 am

Question: "I want to believe in unalienable rights - how can I do that without God?"
Answer: Just belief in the rights that work for you. Rights are always a matter of consensus. You can not found them on some non-human authority. And even in the case of a "solid foundation", they can always be taken away from you by people claiming to speak on behalf of that same solid foundation (God or Reason or Reality or Nature or ...). I belief that it was Dewey who said that democracy is the only metaphysical foundation.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 3:40 pm

Most would agree that all people (rich or poor) deserve as unalienable the rights to life and liberty, since we each are born and bring with us zero tangible property other than our bodies and the mind that is later to develop. Therefore the idea that the physical resources that exist on earth should on a very basic level be shared equally by all at least at the moment of birth. Also for the sake of this argument please consider wealth to be either money or property, independent of other unfair advantages under a capitalist structure like beauty, intelligence, sanity, talent, size or any element that gives one an unfair advantage over others.

In so many words, few will deny that all people come to this earth with nothing physical except our bodies but leave without the body we came with. During our stay whether under God or by evolutionary thinking, the only things we can collect that we have any possibility of taking with us and as such unalienable are intangibles such as rights to beliefs, attitudes, and feelings, such as love, hate, existence or nonexistence of an intelligent Creator and so on.

So, whether one believes that God placed us here, or we are the result of evolution, no one can deny that the current evidence is that resources are divided unequally among people such that resources appear limited either synthetically by manipulation and control or by sheer finiteness of resources, either way therefore subject to laws of supply and demand.

But even though we are all set here on Earth on an equal basis as far as what we bring with us to earth, some of course are born into wealth and others are not. So anyone should agree that inequality and disagreement originates and hinges on how much wealth one is born into.

So it follows, the more wealth one is born into, the stronger the motivation to interpret as unalienable the "right" to acquire and own unlimited amounts of property as well as unlimited access to life, and liberty.

The less wealth one is born into the stronger the inclination to interpret as unalienable the "right" to acquire and own their fair share of property along with unlimited access to life and liberty.

So, according to agreed upon and undisputed rights to intangibles it follows that here lies the conflict...those born fortunate feel like there should be less government and taxes that infringe on their rights to unlimited tangible property (resources). This is reasonable since losing their property would also encroach on their rights to life and liberty as they know it.

Meanwhile the poor feel like there should be more government and taxes that support their hopes to acquire tangible property (resources) that might serve to show proof of their rights to life and liberty as well as reward their efforts. This also seems reasonable since it requires resources to survive and denied access to tangibles property (resources), their right to life and liberty are encroached upon.

From this we see that rights to intangibles are unalienable to all whether endowed by a Creator, or by evolution. However it’s also clear that rights to property are unalienable in America only to those born into wealth and property, not to mention in some way that falls into a category of "in demand" attributes such as wealth, beauty, talent, intelligence etc.

With respect to atheist societies where human rights are discounted, as well as where they are held in higher regard like America. The only difference is the stated agreement about the "worthiness" of rights of people based on their personal levels of "in demand" attributes such as wealth, beauty, talent, intelligence etc. In the USA our ideas of "worthiness" and therefore our Constitution and government was originally derived from Godly principles where atheist countries are derived from evolutionary (natural) principles of worthiness. Here in America the wealthy are able to say "they are poor because it is the grace of God", where in atheist countries they say "they are poor because of evolution and luck", which is also the academic base in America.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 12:15 pm

I would submit to you that saying unalienable rights are endowed by a creator is at least as unsatisfactory an account for those rights as simply answering that they come from reason. Not being aware of a reasoned explanation, you can take heart that if such an explanation exists you can be presented with it and, being a person capable of reasoning, decide if it is valid or not. An explanation that says they come from a creator is hearsay, and explains precisely nothing.

Perhaps the creator speaks directly to you, and provides an account. Good for you, but any attempt to convey that explanation to others is again hearsay. What happens when that divinely inspired account conflicts with the accounts of others which were divinely inspired? We are left wondering which rights from which creator are the truly unalienable ones. I find faith to be deeply personal, and ultimately at odds with the notion of ubiquitous, unalienable rights.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, March 2010, 6:35 pm

How about evoutionary biology: natural selection and survival of the fittest provide unalienable rights through the experience of many transformations and generations. this might lead to an a priori sense of right.

(Xorox) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 7:10 pm

THE OPPRESSIVE POWER OF THE MAJORITY:
What about our abuse of the unalienable, natural rights of Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics? Hmmmmm The Declaration of Independence and that other document, the US Constitution (violated by President Jackson). Through force and/or coercion and violations of our own Supreme Court rulings we stole land and labor from all three groups. Should we give the land back? How can we ever compensate Blacks for slavery?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 8:11 pm

We did not steal land and labor from anyone, because the will of the majority defines fairness and justice. The minority obviously should not be allowed to overrule the majority's right to life and happiness. Therefore, everything we do through our representative government is fair and just. Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics implicitly agreed to give up certain rights when they agreed to be part of society.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 9:15 pm

why would you compensate people for injuries made to their ancestors by other people who are also dead? sounds like you have a false sense of entitlement. the situation you are born into is luck, and what you do with it is in your hands.

(Xorox) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 3:09 pm

The minority (settlers) stole land and labor from the majority (Native Americans) without their consent. Was this just? Furthermore, they were denied participation in our representative government and, in those cases where they participated, their rights were trampled (Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, 1831) and government treaties/agreements were deliberately broken. Not a fine example of "everything we do through our representative government is fair and just." It is not always just and never had been, particularly in regard to the minorities and the inappropriate control over Congress by big business and the wealthy (the few force and guide legislation, not the majority). Nevertheless, it seems to be the best system we can devise, considering the alternatives. Still, there remains a lot of unjust inequalities that need to be addressed, not for only the majority, but for the betterment of our whole society.

I do not believe that the Blacks gave their consent for forced slavery by the south, nor consented to be a part of southern society in North America. They were attacked in Africa, their families and society broken, shackled, and shipped to the south through brutish force. They were the majority in many areas of the south and were denied participation in the representative system of government. We stole their labor through sheer force and after the Civil War the Blacks were intimidated and coerced by the white population until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

We stole through force and coercion the southwestern part of the US from indigenous Hispanics and Native American Indians. They were the original majority. Where was their rights in our fair and just system? They were sacrificed for Manifest Destiny and reservations were created for the Native Americans. If the racial roles were reversed, would you still believe this just?

We have trampled the unalienable, natural rights of Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics in North America. While the people have changed, the same government is still in existence; with added constitutional amendments, legislation, and case law. The concept of a false sense of entitlement is used to justify no retroactive compensation, yet this mantra ignores fundamental moral and ethical questions. Is this moral and just?

Is it false to remedy an unjust action because of the passage of time? Our courts say yes and the prosecution of many criminal deeds have a statute of limitations inherent within the common law legal system. Some unjust, immoral, and unethical acts are forgiven by society due to the passage of time. Is this always right and just?

How do we rectify past injustice? Can we ignore past injustice because some perceive this as a false sense of entitlement for past immoral and unethical misdeeds? After the passage of time, is ignoring any or all past unjust actions always warranted?

(rogernovotny) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 7:25 pm

Xorox,

"The oppressive power of the majority," as it has been used by the Founders, had to do with protecting the white minority property owners from "mob rule." It took no account of what the colonists did to secure (or appropriate) the land (and the New World).

So yes, you do seem to have a valid point. I believe this point was raised in the fourth lecture, which sort of suggested that Lock, in addition to laying out the foundation for the new government, was also an apologist: he was, if I am not mistaken, one of the colonial administrators.
reply

(Xorox) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 1:52 pm

It could be interpreted that J. Locke's actions (or lack of action) contradicted his own later philosophical writings. Having previously invested in slavery, why didn't Locke subsequently write that he deplored the slavery trade? He was administering, in part, the slave trade after writing the Second Treatise. Looks like duplicity to me.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 9:24 pm

@rogernovotny while I still question the 'innateness' of rights (as you point out, they rely on insisting/judging values) you bring up categorical imperatives...

I guess that cat. imp.s could fit the bill for secularists as they provide a certain 'Reason' based unconditional morality, yet it seems to me that Kant's or anyone's individual reason still hinges on another's consent or agreement with it. If I dissent with Kant, then his categorical imperatives are not truly unconditional. (I feel like I am coming off as completely ignorant with my argument that "his reason is as good as mine"...)

As you can tell I am very muddled. Perhaps it's because skepticism can always say "no" to everything...?

I still feel as though without God there really is no inherent system of 'rights.' Sure we can reason preferable behavior, but (as I am seeing it) preference and even 'Reason' are relative. If something is going to force the responsibility of rights on me (i.e. if they really are unalienable) then that something better be unquestionable.

by the way, you can call me juristime.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 10:42 pm

I would shy away from using "reason" to arrive at value. I'm not certain how exactly Kant arrives at the categorical imperative (should be covered in the next lecture or so), but the fact-value distinction is rather solid (although some philosophers have tried to close the gap somehow).

The use of reasoning as means to arrive at "morality" (and absolute morality at that) is subject to pitfalls. And unless you're willing to hypothesize certain qualities about human beings as kind of apriori (which is what I think Kant did), then - in the absence of appeal to a deity (which is also a big presumption), one is kind of stuck and must accept the inviolability of a human being as an article of faith. You simply will the value. (Ultimately, you can't win a moral argument with a Nazi!)

I'm a Wittgensteinian, so I have sort of a recourse here (since I can speak of "forms of life" and "language games" in which morality is embedded) but even so, I don't think there can be a kind of solid grounding that you're looking for.

But why should the "unalienable" part of rights worry you? To say their "innate" is perhaps a weaker claim - though it still presupposes a lot. Could you live with the lesser claim?

(Jelle NL) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 10:10 am

Yes, "preference" and "reason" are relative. And so is "God". For it are always people who speak on behalf of God; who try to understand the holy text. There are no unquestionable or absolute foundations for your rights. But the fact that the Declaration of Independence or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is man-made and rest on consensus does not make it trivial.

(rogernovotny) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 1:13 pm

Jelle, NL,

No, it's far from trivial. But mere consensus may not be enough. You don't wan't "rights" to be a matter of convention.

You do have somewhat of an anchor for "morality" as being embedded in our language - and consequently, our "form of life," as Wittgenstein might say. And in that sense it's not quite arbitrary. Contingent, yes, because it wouldn't necessarily follow for another "form of life" or for all possible worlds, but not arbitrary or merely conventional.

That's why "justice" is such an important moral concept - serving as a kind of litmus test for evaluating our moral or other practices.
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 2:25 pm

Thank you, Roger - Don't you think that Wittgenstein would say that language games, including the language games of justice or rights, are made by human beings? These games have certain rules, but they too are man-made (conventional, if you like). Why would consensus be not enough?
I agree that justice is an important moral concept. How would you define it? (My definition: Justice is to wish for others, what you would wish for yourself)

(rogernovotny) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 5:56 pm

Jelle NL

Language emerges out of and in conjunction with practice. And it serves either to validate or invalidate a practice. If a practice is incoherent, so it will be with the language and the practice will disappear or or least be shown to be incoherent. So the coherence of language derives from coherence of human practice. Hence, every language game has certain logic. So it's not just a matter of simple convention, like naming things. It's almost like an organic type of process. I won't say anymore now for fear of getting metaphysical,
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 3:41 am

Roger - I think Wittgenstein would answer: Language is like a tool box. As time goes by some tools become obsolete, while new ones are developed. We select the tools we need or prefer to get our jobs done (your “organic type of process”). The logic (or coherence) behind this “natural selection” remains our logic, not that of something non-human.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 1:55 pm

Is it an general law or an arbitrary rule if only the 300 millionth percentage of people have to pay taxes? What about the 301st millionth? What about the 302 millionth? Ok, you get the idea.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 1:55 pm

Perfect, Jelle NL. I was only addressing the coherence question as a way of grounding our linguistic and other practices (without the necessity of appealing to a creator or some kind of transcendental reason) - namely to say that practice that don't make sense to begin with either will have to be modified to reflect certain logic or scrapped altogether. (Obsolescence is of course another matter, but it doesn't reflect on coherence, only on what's, shall we say, currently in fashion.

The idea of our, human kind of logic is well taken. Although it is contingent in some absolute sense - relative to other forms of life and a variety of possible worlds - it is, nonetheless, binding and defining a given form of life. (This subject was ably argued and I'll provide the reference once I come across it.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 2:00 pm

Regarding your earlier comment, Jelle NL - about consensus. It's not a kind of consensus which comes about as a result of, say, voting on the issue. The way I see it, and if it is a consensus, it's a kind of tacit consensus which emerges in the course of practice.
reply

(Greg) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 3:46 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 9:10 pm

zzzz

(Jelle NL) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 12:33 pm

Greg - Is it right then to conclude that our definition of justice (or rights) is contingent and subjective (the result of forces beyond our control; like the family we are born into or the education we received). Would it be possible to arrive at a defintion of justice that is less subjective; that is intersubjective? If I understand Prof. Sandel correctly - his book “Justice; what is the right thing to do?” arrived a few weeks ago at the American Book Center here in the Netherlands - the answer is: yes. Such a definition would be the result of discussion (public reasoning) and consensus; and not a matter of non-human foundations or neutral ground.

(Rothbard) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 9:36 am

Once again Greg seems to think it impossible that wealth can actually be earned, he feels that it simply exists and everyone should have a fair share.

"Some of course are born into wealth, others are not."
"only to those born into wealth and property"

Wealth is created through human ingenuity, skill, effort and voluntary exchange between consenting people. Even Greg must accept that if you go back through the generations far enough in a wealthy family at some point the wealth which has been passed down had to be earned

Of course some people inherit the wealth created by their ancestors, but many more create their own, despite having to shoulder the burden of paying for those parasites who contribute little but demand a "fairer share" of the production of others.

Where Bill Gates or Michael Jordan born into wealth or did they earn it ?

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 8:26 pm

Should the amount of children one is allowed to have be controlled, as large family size is a means to achieving disproportionate wealth and property?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 1:31 pm

China and various other countries attempt to limit the number of children per family - with mixed results.

Large families tend to be most common in very poor countries (since they do not expect all their children to survive) and among religious parents (who believe having lots of children is both a "duty" and a "blessing").

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 8:50 pm

"However it’s also clear that rights to property are unalienable in America only to those born into wealth and property, not to mention in some way that falls into a category of "in demand" attributes such as wealth, beauty, talent, intelligence etc."

Great post, but from this arguement you have implied that the poor or middle class could never attain property or wealth. So those with wealth, whether acquired by "luck" in birth or "luck" in personal matters, should be required by the minority to pay the highest percentage of the tax burden. This is the case in our society where the wealthiest pay the highest percentages in the tax bracket.

To me this is counter to the idea that the government of our country was founded on the idea of majority rule with minority rights. The majority should not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of the minority whether it is in regard to taxes or civil liberties and rights. In taxing the rich minority excessively the majority are violating their rights.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 8:25 am

If the suffering of the majority outweighs the suffering of the minority, if majority (50% 1) rule is moral, and if the collective society and community owns individuals, then what is the need or basis for ANY individual rights? Explain your answer in the context of why slavery is immoral? Please cite documented historical, scientific, sociological, psychological premises for your arguments. Satisfactorily answer this question, and you will change my beliefs about the utility AND morality of libertarianism.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 8:27 am

majority equals 50 percent plus 1
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 1:23 pm

Simple majority is not a decision - nor does it represent the will of enough people to determine what to do. The worst case of this is in the U.S. Supreme Court, where ONE vote usually determines the law for everyone in the country. I think that there needs to be at least twice as many people for something as opposed for "democratic" (mob rule) to claim a "majority".

(rogernovotny) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 7:42 pm

Jelle NL

"Such a definition would be the result of discussion (public reasoning) and consensus; and not a matter of non-human foundations or neutral ground."

I don't want to beat Greg to the punch, but this seems right. The definitions of such terms are never fixed, are always subject to challenge as new questions and circumstances arise which put previous conceptions to a test. So in that sense, yes, the definitions do evolve in the course of public debate and are therefore consensual. One might think of the definition of such a term as justice as a kind of (mathematical) limit with respect to a sequence of numbers approaching it.
reply

(Ken) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 9:02 pm

I look to the Bible for examples of inalienable rights. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve owned nothing. The Garden and all in it belonged to God. God asked Abraham to slay his son Isaac. Hmm, nothing inalienable about Isaac's life. God and Satan amused themselves torturing Job. God struck down countless enemies of Israel. Even Jesus was not spared his inalienable right to life. And Judas was sacrificed for the greater good. It seems that a Judeo-Christian basis for inalienable rights lacks evidence.

I am bothered by the inalienable right to life. Suicide should be permitted. While each one of us has no say in his or her entry into the world, I certainly can decide how and when to exit this world if I so choose. If I can't take my own life, then I can't be a martyr either. No justification would exist then for me to sacrifice my life for the sake of another person's life.

Locke's inclusion of property among the inalienable rights may be a bit of a stretch. If property is inalienable, then it would be valid in other cultures beyond white Europeans. Yet, many societies exist in Africa and Asia and perhaps in Australia and South America where land is held in communal trust rather than individually owned. In particular, I remember when I lived in the Philippines, groups of indigenous peoples there owned land as community property (”ancestral lands” was the term used). The concept of privately owned land was alien to them. These groups' lands were often taken out from under them by big corporations or land developers who obtained written deeds to the lands according to the government's Torrens title system (very similar to American land title documentation). Eerily like what happened in the New World to Native Americans by the European settlers.

Locke's presumption that the acquisition of land used in one's labor, say the field of grain planted by a farmer, is OK as long as there's plenty of land to go around for everybody is specious. Land may have appeared to be plentiful for the taking by European settlers in the New World, but that confiscation disregarded any a priori claims that Native Americans may have had. Back in Europe at the time of John Locke, why couldn't peasant farmers on manorial lands lay claim to the land they tilled as an extention of their labor? Oh, an aristocrat already owned the vast lands tilled by the peasant farmer. Well, that didn't stop the white settlers in America from taking Indian lands. Were these manorial lands acquired by the European aristocrat or his descendents in a fair and just way? Probably not. Usually wealth is obtained originally from less than scrupulous means and becomes legitimate over time. Or somebody happened to be in the right place at the right time and received the King's favor.

Looking at the world today, clearly there is not enough land available for everybody to confiscate as an inalienable extension of one's labor.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Tuesday 13, October 2009, 5:53 am

Judging by the rate of comments per lecture, there is an attrition. Perhaps it's a good thing because by the time we reach the tenth or the twelfth episode, only the good will survive

Any thoughts?

BTW, what must I do to avoid the "delete comment" message that gets posted right above the "reply" message.
reply

(DanielAyer) said:

Wednesday 14, October 2009, 8:23 pm

I wholly believe that one has direct possession of one's self from the beginning. However, we slowly trade our ownership over ourselves as we integrate more and more into society. We can at any time chose to deny society its claim to some portion of ourselves, however we must then live with the consequences of that denial.
Take as granted the premises that I own my body, and it is mine to do with as I please. If then I were to consume damaging products, such as drugs or unhealthy foods, that is my right. However, if I then request aid from society when my health falters, I must provide some portion of my self in recompense. This would hold that money is a store of labor, and as such I am in essence trading some of myself for the services rendered from someone else.
However, if I were to DEMAND that society provide my health care, without direct recompense from myself at the time of care, the story changes. For demands on society to be warranted we must yield to society some control over ourselves. This would be in the form of laws which prohibit my consumption of damaging goods in some form, and direct taxation to provide those services (as opposed to payment on delivery).
Therefore, to what degree society may encroach on my rights to my own self must be determined by the demands I make on society. This might be a vague rubric, but I believe it holds the key to uniting Libertarian thought with Utilitarian thought. It is also what I hold to be.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 11:56 am

Daniel, I agree with your belief (and objectively support your view) and would like to impose the concept of consent using your example about society. The individual DEMAND on society/legislation illustrates the facade that natural consent (state of nature) and legislative consent (state of law) equally maintain the law-making process.

(DanielAyer) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 10:32 am

Since Locke argues for the unalienable rights for life, liberty, and property, would this argument preclude war as a practice? If one group wages war against another, isn't the whole point to deny the other group of its life, liberty, and property?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 1:16 pm

Obviously, rights do not extend to all people - especially when it might be inconvenient, uncomfortable, or if they have what you want.

(rogernovotny) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 5:01 pm

Jelle (I suppose NL stands for Netherlands),

Would you be interested in joining a discussion group? (see the description right below the general comments section.)

Roger Nowosielski
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 4:47 pm

Roger - Thank you for the invitation, but I don't follow you here. (description below the general comments section?)
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 8:04 pm

Jelle,

I have no idea whether the discussion circle is visible/accessible to you. Perhaps I should specify the point of focus in the general description section. Anyway, here is my first post:

One of objects will be to discuss the efficacy of the re-constructive efforts by such philosophers as Michael Sandel in light of a great many postmodernists text (Foucault and Lyotard, for instance) which not only caution us against optimism but in some radical instances - Foucault being the prime example - suggest that no escape from power relations is possible. So we have to be able to find an escape clause in Foucault in order to avert the nihilistic conclusion.

For those interested in the focus of this debate in the foreseeable future, you may email me at rogernowosielski@yahoo.com and I'll provide you with the appropriate links and reference material to key texts.

Thank you.

Roger Nowosielski

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 24, October 2009, 10:18 am

I recently finished Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, and I think he adds some things to a discussion of property rights based on Locke’s notion of property as a phenomenon that finds its origins in the state of nature.

Rousseau finds private property to be more or less the root of all evil in human society (with desire for reputation a close second). He sees money and the unequal distribution of private property as a social, not a natural phenomenon. He also sees both as fundamentally immoral and corruptive and the key origin of inequality amongst human beings.

He states: “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried to his fellow men: ‘Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one.’” (p. 44).

Rousseau draws heavily from Locke (for his theories of ideas, for drawing the line of division between animals and human beings at abstract reasoning through language, and a labor theory of value and right to property). Still he disagrees on a couple of very significant point from Locke.

Locke sees a natural basis for money and the unequal distribution of property. These phenomena for Locke are both morally defensible and natural (that is, pre-social contract, pre-societal).

In Chapter V of Second Treatise of Government, Locke offers a moral defense of money as a way to acquire an unequal share of private property without letting goods go to waste or keeping them from those who need them when the owner does not (i.e., hoarding):

Par. 46. “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 uselessly 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 for 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 uselessly in his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its colour; or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a sparking pebble or diamond, and keep those by him all his life, he invaded not the right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it.”

Locke argues re: the natural basis for money and the unequal distribution of wealth.

Par. 50. “But since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of man in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value only from the consent of men, whereof labour yet makes, in great part, the measure, it is plain, that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found out a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver, which may be hoarded up to any one, these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands of the possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value and gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing in the use of money, for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.”

For me the audacious part of this statement is the claim that the establishment of money as a universal medium of exchange occurred in a state of nature. Locke says it is a “tacit agreement” that occurred “out of the bounds of society” and “without compact.” To me, the creation of any semiotic system--kinship, language, systems of exchange--is by definition the product of collective meaning-making and should in no way be regarded as “natural.” Each of these systems, it seems to me, is the contingent product of a particular culture and history and so in no way pre-cultural, universal, or necessary.

Summary: For Locke, money and the unequal distribution of wealth and property it facilitates, comes before human society and is naturally just. For Rousseau, these are products of society and absent from the state of nature and, further, are both unjust and corruptive.

--Tom Dodson
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 9:47 am

Tom Dodson has got good head on his shoulders.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 27, October 2009, 3:08 am

In response to your question: 2. John Locke believes that government, once it is set up, should be guided by the principle of majority rule. However, he also believes that the purpose of government is to protect people’s rights, including their “unalienable” right to property. What if these two goals conflict? What if a poor majority wants to tax a rich minority?

I have a possible solution that is may differ a bit in the area of right to property and national borders:

What if we created virtual countries? I mean if I'm from European Union and I want to be an American, I apply for my American citizenship, but I never leave my property in European Union. I mean my property would be connected to my citizenship and hence part of the American national system, once I become an American citizen. I mean virtual countries to where people stay and never have to migrate, if they would like to be part of another system of government. Instead, they just apply and their property, tax, and status would change to the applicable national state of choice? Ofcourse, there would be common agreements and restrictions made between nations to where properties are still planned and architected to serve the neighboring nationalists living in the same neighborhood? Would this process not completely elimintate the need for militaries to guard our borders, and or the need for immigration and solve refugee issues? Would this process not possiblly eliminate any chance of another world war? No borders and virtual countries(nations) may solve most our hunting issues such as possiblity of Wars, hunger, revolutions, immigration, and refugees amongst others. Is this not what will eventually happen, anyway? Just a thought? msojdehei@hotmail.com
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 31, October 2009, 10:58 am

If it is put forth that because we live in a society that we give up our property rights simply because we have earned more and been more successful than others then the end result is Tyrany of the majority!!!!! There will always be more poor than rich and so the successful will always be at the mercy of the unsucessful. This is what causes all republics and democracies to fail in the end.
reply

(StarTRavel) said:

Wednesday 11, November 2009, 1:23 am

John Locke’s “Consent/Tax” idea is a workaround for the flawed concept of private property. True private property only exists in isolation. A man can “consent” to leave the “state of nature” and join a community, but tax should be justified differently. When private property is removed from isolation it becomes partially private property with the community owning a share.

All property in a community is an improvement of an existing property. Property is built from the property of others. Einstein’s contribution to science would not be possible if he was segregated from mankind’s knowledge bass or intellectual property (i.e. lived on an island, never learned math, a language…). Therefore, society owns a share of all property. Thus society has a right to tax assets as long as it is reasonable (a fair share of the profit). A reasonable tax does not stifle growth or innovation essential to the advancement of the individual and society.

In other words: If a man is nurtured through a community to acquire the skills to improve property, the community owns a portion of the improved property. This is also true if a man chooses to join a community or government because he gains leverage, to improve his original property, beyond his own ability, through the resources of the community.

Jefferson substituted “happiness” for “property” – wise move
reply

(Kimig) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 11:24 pm

I totally agree with Locke that we have natural rights to life, liberty and property and with Jefferson that we have unalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness because according to Joshua 1:3 God gives Joshua all of the land where ever he sets the sole of his foot. He did the same thing for Abraham. But now does that mean that everyone has this inheritance? No!

The land God gave Joshua was taken from heathen nations. Nations who were not walking with God or serving HIM. And it was also instructed to Joshua that in order for the children of Israel to keep the new conquered territory that they would have to stay away from the heathen gods and they would have to continue to fear before the Lord in obedience to all HIS commands and statutes. Man's laws may have tried to change God's laws but inevitably they will return to the structures of HIS word one way or another with or without man's consent.
And about Adult consent or tacit consent: I don't believe that it is theft to pay one's taxes.

I believe that it is right and just to have different tax brackets according to per capita and possessions. If one chooses to live in a society and have the benefits of that society that cost money for those entities in the society to exist then one should be expected to pay for those goods and services provided by the society. Likewise the public service members of that society should feel happy to provide the goods and deeds equally without prejudice or partiality to the members of that society. Not that everyone pays the same amount for the services but that everyone sacrifices the same amount.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 23, November 2009, 8:14 am

If a man owns his labor, then slavery is theft. Was Locke against slavery? Or did he not consider slaves actual human beings?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 26, November 2009, 4:28 pm

wykop kurwa!!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 26, November 2009, 4:30 pm

thats nice video, i wanna lessons like this in my country
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 1, December 2009, 8:34 pm

John Locke is not confused.

The premise given in the question is “every man has a property in his own person.” Then one of the logical conclusions from this premise can be “therefore, every man can do whatever he likes with his own person, including putting himself into slavery.”

John Locke, however, adds another premise on top of the above one, which is, despite the fact that every man has a property in his own person, “the rights to life, liberty, and property are inalienable.” From the combination of these two premises, it logical to conclude that a person does not have a right to enslave himself.

A Security Guard somewhere in DC.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 2, December 2009, 7:57 am

I found it interesting that Dr. Sandel didn't finish reading one of the Locke excerpts. Around 39 minutes into the video he reads from Locke "[...] it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate" as an example of Locke supposedly supporting all manner of taxation, etc. However, recall that this whole discussion was introduced with the seizing of Bill Gates' and Michael Jordan's property for the purposes of wealth redistribution.

The Locke excerpt finishes "should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it" (where "it" refers to the aforementioned "protection"). So here Locke is explicitly stating that it is right for each member of the society to pay his fair share of the government's operating capital for the service of protecting his property. The second half of that excerpt simply reinforces the notion that even getting this money requires consent (including indirectly through representatives).

It doesn't sound to me like there's much of a case for Locke supporting progressive taxation for wealth redistribution given that redistribution is exactly the OPPOSITE of protecting property. Now, taxation for paying judges, police, etc.--yeah, Locke says that.
reply

(JEQP) said:

Tuesday 8, December 2009, 12:32 am

Locke argues that if someone puts in work and effort to create something, then they own that thing (although these days they're far more likely to have signed over the rights to a company they work for). The big objection to this is that while someone may "improve" something (such as land) through their labour, it doesn't change the fact that they were taking something that wasn't theirs to do so, and therefore removing it from the pool of resources of the rest of the people.

Locke does add the condition that this applies "at least where there is enough, and as good left in the common for others", but that's a fairly subjective decision to make, and doesn't change the basic fact that someone is taking what was everybodies and converting into something that is solely theirs.

I think this is why the right to private property doesn't eliminate the possibility or the responsibility of governments to tax their citizens, even for social programs. All private property that I can think of comes from the commons - it may not come directly from the commons, but at some point in the history of its components it relies on the commons, and therefore while someones work could be considered theirs I don't think it can be considered wholly theirs.
reply

(sauter) said:

Friday 11, December 2009, 3:12 pm

I think the whole perspective of natural laws, or "state of nature", is flawed. The problem I have with it is that it is basically impossible for us humans to go back to our "nature". There is no such thing as "human nature", because just being able to think about ourselves implies the notion of culture (loosely following L. Strauss). The human condition is inseparable from culture, so any argument in the direction of human nature is to be considered with caution.

I leave the question open, of whether there is a more scientific way of investigating human nature. My view on this is that it is not possible, as even newborns are immersed in culture even before being born (following Lacan), but who knows if someday this exploration is made possible by means that I cannot currently imagine.

With that being said, I have a problem with Locke imagining what inconveniences would arise from living in the State of Nature. If natural laws are, by definition, natural, that is, intrinsic to all human beings without regarding their culture, then why would a State of Nature be a problem if people should abide by those laws naturally? At least most of the people would respect the natural laws, which makes the inconvenience of the State of Nature far smaller in scale than what I understand from Locke's assertions (in the lecture).

My take on this is, that there is no possible State of Nature because there are is no such thing as laws of nature in the sense that Locke describes those. And there is no possibility of living in a State of Nature because of culture. We cannot force ourselves out of culture. As long as we are linked to a culture, we are living in a state different than the state of nature.
reply

(reinhartz) said:

Sunday 30, May 2010, 12:01 am

I agree with you about the opinions on the so called natural laws which turned to be the basic assumption of all Locke's reasoning. I go more radical in thinking that the ideas of Locke such as "one has direct possession of one's self" and the "unalienable rights to life, liberty and property" are not self-evident,permanent and universal.

First of all, this assertions can not be proved or written into a confirmable hypothesis. In this way, it is just a belief, raised by Locke and believed by many people these days. Admittedly, i personally like this belief, but logically, it has no difference with a religion.

Why can not it be also natural that we belong to the collective, to the slave owner, to the aristocracy, or to the dictortor? The only reason is that we don't like these other alternatives, not that they are logically wrong. How about the ideas that we are owned by the nature itself? Just like some religions such as Druid or Daoism. Or, can we go a deep further, to question the very existence of self? Does the concept of "I" really exists, or it is only an illusion? As Buddist may argue?

(nwojewoda) said:

Friday 5, November 2010, 4:58 pm

Good point. I was thinking about a similar argument: is it actually possible to live in a "state of nature", in a world where becoming stateless (by choice) is not allowed?

Cf. article 7 of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness:
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/6_1_1961.pdf

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 23, December 2009, 1:21 pm

I was really surprised to see how few students believe in John Locke's philosophy, considering that it is America's legacy philosophy, even included in the Declaration of Independence.
reply

(Amarsir) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 11:06 pm

Don't ascribe too much importance to the word "enclose." Locke simply meant if nobody's using the land, if nobody owns the land, then either some procedure must exist for claiming it or else it will never be owned by anyone. And he's specifying that you can't just claim it all, you can only take what you can use AND which leaves some for others.

@Unregistered of Dec 23: It's Cambridge. I'm surprised there are so many! >;-)

I haven't actually read Locke in a decade, but as presented here Locke is simply begging the question of what is an "arbitrary" law. Is a law that varies by income level "generally applicable"? What if it varies by race or gender? If a government can craft the law to carve out the desired section, surely at some point it approaches an arbitrary assessment.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 2, January 2010, 4:16 pm

The "arbitrary" problem is the one i had in my head after watching this lecture.

Locke says, that it's ok to make general laws, as long as they arent arbitrary, as long as they dont give the possibility to pick out someone of the crowd and take away something from him...

Well, I belive, that the system of making "general rules" alows picking out certain people!

Referring to Bill Gates. Lets say the majority says: anyone whose property is worth more than 40 bilion dollars has to pay up... Now how isnt that arbitrary? So is the conscription... There is a general rule that healthy men in an appropriate age are to fight for their country. Well, how isnt that arbitrary?

I dont really grasp the real and practical difference of saying: you there, give us your money and saying: everyone who (list of requirements, adjustable to fit almost any group of people) has to give their money to society.

Now i know, that there are regulations, and its illegal to i.e. make certain races to pay more taxes etc. but thats not a part of Locke's system, is it? And, to what extent should we protect people from discrimination? Being overprotective in this matter could lead us to a situation, where refusing anyone to do something will be an act of discrimination, i.e. not hiering fat people as models is a discrimination...

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 1, January 2010, 12:11 am

Government cannot violate your natural rights as long as you maintain your ability to exit the society.

Example, Bill Gates can move his company to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes.

If this actually happened, though, Microsoft customers would violate Gates' natural rights to his IP, and Gates would loss all his money, as his IP would no longer be protected by the government.
reply

(TheITSystem) said:

Monday 1, February 2010, 7:44 pm

I disagree about the IP. Many of the USPTO's protections are extended to non-citizen people and entities. I love the concept of questioning what in fact will happen if Microsoft, Google, struggling Yahoo (they could argue it the prior two could not) were to move to Bermuda. IBM manufactures in Mexico, but stays an American Corporation. How much do they avoid in taxes by shipping money to their own interests in other countries?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 8:11 pm

The government determines ultimately what constitutes property. What would Locke say about derivatives or fertilized embryos or radio frequencies? In this country, we have the Constitution, which both organizes and sets limits on government. Without a constitution, what do you do, pledge allegiance to Rousseau or Locke or Hamilton? Within the above parameters, the government, as a democratic institution, can do whatever it wants to do. If you don't like it, you're free to exit to a natural state.
reply

(alanomar) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 3:33 am

There's a pretty simple way to consider and test any notion of natural right
If the government deprives people of _______, do they resist? Are they willing to suffer and die
to protect what they consider sacred (religiously defined or not). The same will to violence that forces
people to create civil society is the energy that is relied upon to alter it or overthrow it (when required).

Locke dances around the question of the right to revolt, but that's because he doesn't want to defend it as a right, per se.
Revolt is a means to resist tyranny, it's a means to restore civil society to protect rights. As such, its exercise can be abused.

I think that Jefferson got the "Happiness" revision right but that raises the issue of whether or he should've
appreciated more the project of building of a 'large commercial republic.' Maybe a stricter view of property,
i.e., one more properly defined according to the LTofV, would have helped
protect the agrarian life he thought ideal to democratic impulses.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 9:19 am

The notion of "consent" is based on, or defined as, multiple choice versus the process of thought. For example, from my experience, most students would prefer a multiple choice test versus fill-in-the-blank or essay questions; even when students are bold enough to voice their thought(s) the majority still solicits a choice just by their presentation (note students speaking with conviction in lectures).

I interpret John Locke's notion of consent as the "ideal government". The ideal government is based on accepted definition(s), drafted in a fashion that promotes dependence on selection of established choices. This replaces the nature of consent with the right of consent and defines the idea of unalienable rights; the relinquishing of natural rights for legislative rights. There are a slue of examples to be offered, from how students respond in a classroom to creation of life, that illustrate the "niche market" that most people are attracted --or rightfully consent--to.

Therefore Locke's philosophy is built on sustaining legislation. In Locke's defense he elaborated on legislation through his natural rights; this classifies him as an elitist, a very uncompromising survival skill that promotes nature.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 6, January 2010, 12:15 am

The teacher keeps talking about hunting, but do the animals not own themself?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 16, January 2010, 11:06 pm

Apparently not. I've watched the first four episodes so far, and while I am enjoying them to a certain extent, the anthropocentrism of the debate is starting to get a little vexing. Not only for the question you raise about the animals hunted owning themselves, but also for Locke's crucial assumption that land is to be considered unused if it's not being directly used by humans for agriculture (or anything for the benefit of humans, perhaps).

I would also take serious issue with Locke's implication that the kind of "improving" of the land that should lead to ownership is anything and everything that is agriculture. Modern methods of monoculture agriculture -- razing the land; planting a single crop; and then dowsing the land with synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers -- are, far from an improvement, a great degradation to the land. These lands are being left in far worse shape after the farming than before.

As for Locke's mixing of the labor with the land bit, it reminds me of what I've heard of Marx's theory of the value of labor. I'm guessing that the two come to very different conclusions, however, since for Locke apparently a laborer working in someone else's field is different from a laborer working in some (mythical) field that no one else had ever used. Sounds to me more like the game rules for a land rush than a fundamental formulation of the good and the right.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 17, January 2010, 1:59 am

I'm Kinda wanting to dispute the fact that one has a choice to live in a society.It might have been true when Locke was writing that one might have been able to choose to live in a society, but not today.Is it not illegal to sell things on the black market without claiming taxes? I"m not sure one has a choice??
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 1:16 pm

Would Locke then be an advocate for the government's use of eminent domain?
reply

(TheITSystem) said:

Monday 1, February 2010, 7:33 pm

I wish that Nicola had been able to carry on that tangent for a bit longer. If I'm not allowed to commit suicide, I have no place that I can withdraw from society, and I was born here. Those are all facts. Now what course of action do I have if I do not want to participate? It is impossible for me to start out a contention in an argument that you, he, she, we, they ... are here in choice and by no choice may you and yourself go away.
reply

(Szatyor) said:

Sunday 7, February 2010, 6:43 am

Professor Sandel seem to have an idea of government that stands apart from human beings. He keeps referring to it as a separate entity whereas it seems more reasonable to think of government as a human institution which, like all the rest, has a function or purpose human beings forged for it. All other idea of government seem more like disguised ways of elevating some humans above others for purposes of ruling them, not a means of governing ourselves guided by natural rights. Dr. Sandel also suggest that because for Locke some matters are left to be devised by citizens and their governments (representatives), this means that Locke didn't provide good enough rules for translating natural rights into positive law. But this is solved by means of the consent provision. So long as consent is preserved, what citizens devise, how they translate fundamental rights into the details of positive law, justice is preserved and extended into the future.
reply

(tmacka) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 5:05 pm

Does Locke's analysis successfully meld the utilitarian and libertarian viewpoints in a cohesive theory that respects both?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, March 2010, 7:24 pm

by HK
In regard to a creator
It is my understanding that none of the classical arguments in favor of the existence of a creator--Ontological or teleological for example--hold up. What we are left with is a series of revelations that demonstrate the existence of a creator based on personal--one or many-- experiance. Then there is the problem of distinguishing between revelation and schizophrenia.
HK
reply
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, April 2010, 7:56 am

how can i download it? :((
reply

(liushuailt) said:

Sunday 2, May 2010, 1:27 am

in some aspects,war is a right thing,you can possessed a part of land from nature to live ,why cant't I possessed the same land from you?the land is the nature's,we all have the right to get it ,why you can get it,but I can't? is it just because you came earlier,so you can ,and because I came later,so I can't?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 5, May 2010, 1:51 pm

Keeping in mind our natural rights given to us at birth and those unalienable rights which were provided by the Constitution one can see how imposition by the government to pay taxes can be unfair. Would it not be more acceptable to allow each citizen to respectively distribute tax money where he or she sees fit?

Tanicka and Mamie
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 14, May 2010, 1:30 pm

On the topic of land, air, water and animals -- it seems clear to me at this point that a limitation on consent is that it exists only in human terms, and leaves out those other (valid) voices. Especially when, as someone mentioned above, they are rarely improved by the work of 'man', but instead actually degraded.

Current circumstances in the world illustrate that point. Not enough clean water for all inhabitants of the planet? That is a direct cause of freely using water sources under the guise of 'improving' them, and believing that they are only for us because we 'found' them and claimed them.

I'm anticipating that there will eventually be talk of the responsibilities that we all innately have to the resources, just as much as we all innately have the right to use them...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 29, May 2010, 6:23 am

This is a fascinating exercise.

Looking at the example of someone who lives in a town of 100 people and happened to luckily be a collector of skateboards. Something happens where the only way to travel is to use skateboards and the only place skateboards could be attained is through this collector.

But a key factor to relate this to reality is to look at the situation relatively. Instead of the collector having 100 skateboards let's say that the collector has 1 million. At some point relative to society the accumulation of an inordinate amount of wealth could appear to be obscene. Also to challenge the Libertarian position, I wouldn't ask why shouldn't a society take the 100 skateboards but instead ask, "What type of person would feel the need to have 1 million skateboards knowing full well that their fellow human beings in need have none?"

Ultimately at some point the Libertarian position is challenged not due to it being wrong on the liberty and rights of the individual but more on the lack of concern or "heart" that we have for each other. While in situations that are gray this can be muddy in relatively clear situations where we have people who have come into an "obscene" amount of money, choosing to hoard their wealth in the face of when other people are desperately working hard and are still starving.

I would not question that taking something from someone is wrong but more why would someone with obscene wealth not have the base humanity to not want to share or help another person(s)in great need? How much money or things does someone need to feel safe, secure, and assuage their possible fear of loss? Is it possible that people who work hard can both be wealthy as well as poor?
reply

(reinhartz) said:

Sunday 30, May 2010, 12:06 am

The so called natural laws which turned to be the basic assumption of all Locke's reasoning. I think that the ideas of Locke such as "one has direct possession of one's self" and the "unalienable rights to life, liberty and property" are not self-evident,permanent and universal.

First of all, this assertions can not be proved or written into a confirmable hypothesis. In this way, it is just a belief, raised by Locke and believed by many people these days. Admittedly, i personally like this belief, but logically, it has no difference with a religion.

Why can not it be also natural that we belong to the collective, to the slave owner, to the aristocracy, or to the dictortor? The only reason is that we don't like these other alternatives, not that they are logically wrong. How about the ideas that we are owned by the nature itself? Just like some religions such as Druid or Daoism. Or, can we go a deep further, to question the very existence of self? Does the concept of "I" really exists, or it is only an illusion? As Buddist may argue?
reply

(Zoonie) said:

Thursday 7, October 2010, 5:26 pm

1) Mostly due to the spreading of American culture, the word “liberty” makes us think that we can do anything we want in the way we want it since we have “rights.” However, we must not forget, we are not the ruler of ourselves. God has given us our life and therefore, we should not decide, just as Locke points out, whether we will take our life away from ourselves or not. God gave us the freedom as a human being to think and decide for ourselves, however, this thinking should not be done without God’s advice. As a Christian, I believe that my limits to liberty and rights are what the Bible says they are and what God tell me they are.
Atheists or people of some religion might not agree with I opinion. Nevertheless, I just want to point out that according to scientific theories, there is a creator, God, who made all the earth and the human being.
reply

(Zoonie) said:

Friday 8, October 2010, 2:59 am

2)
Just as placing more taxation of the rich for the poor, these two goals might conflict in real life. In these situations, I think that the government should choose a decision that will help the society to keep running. For example, they should tax the rich minority for the poor majority in order to keep the rich richer. Without the consumers, there will be no reason for the producers to produce their production or keep the company running. If the poor increases and the rich just get richer, the society will not be healthy and its economical field will aggravate rapidly.
However, I just would like to point out that taxing the rich just because a poor majority wants to tax a rich minority in order to get more money from the government, is not right. This is because the poor should not “want” the rich’s money; instead, they should be thankful to be receiving the money, labor, and time of the rich minority through taxation. Moreover, it is also because, among the poor, there are people who try to work harder with the money they receive from the government; however, there are also people who are just lazy and live only with the money they receive from the government. Some people may not even be that poor like others but they might keep their economical records as if they are really poor so that they can get more money from the government. Therefore, the government should check whether the poor, who gets the taxation money, is really poor or not and they should check if they are trying to live hard in order to get out of their status quo.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 12, October 2010, 12:43 pm

I don't think that the Government should have the right to decide how much percentage of your salary they have the right to take. It's absolute madness that they can take 30-40% of anyone's salary regardless how much or little they make. I also do not believe the Government should have the power to redistribute that money where they see fit. I am fundamentally against a war and yet I must tacitly consent to that by paying taxes. I feel the money would be much better spent in the lack of good public school education or the right proper medical care if your are underprivileged.
Also, I think that the Governments that are at hand, violate the every natural human law. It is rather a system of Imperialism and greed. The only way one can have any true freedom in the US, a true protection of property or any real respect from the Government is if you pay a huge amount of money for it. So it leaves people who make a lot of money in a better position than the rest. And it just seems outrageous that I would have to pay one cent to have any freedom or respect of my very own life.I don't think Locke would really agree with our Government system today and the way it takes advantage of most people. Also, consent is truly not consent when you are being forced to agree with something based on fear and if you are being lied to and manipulated by the powers at hand. So I do not think true consent exists for the majority when they are kept dumb and naive to actual truths.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 29, October 2010, 4:08 am

It would appear that the option for returning to a state of nature does not exist, or at least would not be acknowledged by the Government. However, if one operates outside the channels of governance (being primarily monetary), one may avoid issues that arise through tacit consent through the use of currency. Live of the common land, stop washing and be a bum, and you should be left alone (if for no other reason than the smell).True anarchy is the beginning of personal freedom but not social freedom.
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Comments (3)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 21, January 2010, 9:47 pm

When considering the philosophy of Locke, one must consider the period of time in which it was written. A monarchy ruled the land on both sides of the Atlantic. Locke had, through his own eyes, witnessed the taking of land, property, and natural rights: this was the history of British rule. Locke’s arguments have validity for the circumstances under which he proposed his philosophy: that the government at will would take or seize property and possessions, as well as liberty from anyone regardless of consent, or majority rule. Personal liberty being taken in many forms, the most prevalent in that time was forced entry into the military to fight for the benefit of the monarchy more so than the collective population as a whole. His ideas of the laws of nature were as such that he believed that the government, even with the majority did not have the right to take these liberties, from those that opposed or did not care to enter into the “social contract” of community. Those that wished to either live outside the community or move to where they would be free to live by the laws of nature, Locke implies they are the ones with the right to choose, to live in nature free from the laws of government, and give their implied consent not to benefit, or have access to faculties provided by the governing entity, so long as their natural rights were not infringed upon. Unlike modern times many people in Locke’s era were born on free land, land on which their ancestors, hunted and cultivated, often not having enclosed the land to mark boundaries, many consented between families, or clans to respect the boundaries established through the generations. This holds true for the Native Americans. I believe Locke specifically mentions enclosures, to clarify, without question just what the boundaries were. Before this country was legally founded and even well after, there was free land for the taking, making the persons of that land free from government rule. When our government declared all the land as belonging to the United States and its citizens, we as a people by default lost the right to live by many of the laws of nature, and by birth alone gave our implied consent to enter into the social contract, without a choice. The fact that all property is now owned, takes away that natural liberty, and we are obliged to honor that contract, because of all that our monies collectively provide: there is no way around this issue in modern times. Though the term immanent domain was not used it was discussed. If we are bound by a social contract, in the sense of community, government, when acting in the best interest of the people (the majority), I believe should have the right of immanent domain.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 24, January 2010, 10:51 pm

Mike / I like Lockes focus on reason and unalienable rights. However, consent of the majority takes us right back to Utilitarianism. The greatest good for the greatest number of people.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, March 2010, 7:16 pm

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Comments (2)

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 29, March 2010, 7:40 pm

First please allow me to preface my answer by telling everyone that I am resident of Redneckistan, aka Biblethumpistan, aka Tennessee and that I have very little formal college education. I just finished the episode regarding same sex marriage and I was surprised that nobody raised what are to me two very important issues with regard to government intervention, and indeed prevention of same sex marriage. First is Constitution amendment #1 which, in part, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establisment of religion, or prohibiting the free excersise thereof". Furthermore, the 14th amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Consequently, it seems to me that religious objections to same sex marriage are mute points by virtue of the 1st amendment. Moreover, the 14th amendment, at least as I interpret it, guarentees, or at least is supposed to, equal protection under the law to ALL citizens of the U.S., weather they be gay or straight, tall or short, black or white, fat or skinny, or whatever have you. As a result, I don't really see why we're all still waysting our time on this.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 29, March 2010, 8:24 pm

Join the Conversation

Public Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Synopsis

Voice Your Opinion

Pop Quiz

Readings

Discussion Guides

Up Next