Natural Rights - Interpreting John Locke

You spew out words without even spending a moment to think about them. The worker owns 100% of all work they provide for the employer and a full time workers is using their labor that is worth their "support and comfort" by providing that labor for the owner's support and comfort as opposed to providing it for their own support and comfort. It is the owner that is dependent upon the employee and not the employee that is dependent upon the owner. To secure the labor of another person the owner is obligated to "match or exceed" the necessary compensation for the support and comfort of the person who's labor they want to provide for their support and comfort.

Of course nothing prevents the person from starting their own enterprise and being the "capitalist" but if they want someone to work for them then, to secure the labor they require for their support and comfort they must "match or exceed" the necessary compensation for the support and comfort of whoever they employ.

We have everything 180 degree out of whack with reality. In nature from microbe to man the only thing that is "owned" is the "self" (and by extension the labor of the self). Under the "laws of property" that were created by "property holders" that created "ownership of property" the only thing that isn't owned is the self (or the labor of the self by extension). In fact when the first laws of "ownership of property" were invented by men they could even own other men. Under our laws of ownership of property the people don't own themselves and they don't own their labor. They work for "capitalist" and everything they produce with their labor belongs to the capitalist to provide for the "capitalist's" support and comfort and when it comes to the "support and comfort" of the worker the capitalist can pretty much say "Go screw yourself because I own your labor, not you!"

This is wrong beyond words and is in direct violation of the Laws of Nature.

Based upon the Laws of Nature it is the capitalist that needs the labor workers and not the worker that needs the capitalist. Because this turns the world around it is the capitalist that must pay for the support and comfort of the worker that, by working for the capitalist, provides for the support and comfort of the capitalist.

You're quoting Locke with about as much understanding as someone being able to read French without understanding language. Start with this very simple fact of nature. The only thing "owned" in nature is the "Self" (and extensions of the self such as thought as labor) by any member of any species from microbe to man. Nothing else is individually owned because everything else is owned by all of the members of all of the species.

They can use the land to provide for their support and comfort (within certain constraints) and based upon their personal labor they establish an undisputed right of possession to that land as long as they continue to use the for their support and comfort. Of course the person is limited to how much "land" they can actually expend personal labor on. The largest property owners in the US (and I forget how many there are, maybe the top 100) "own" an average of 400,000 acres and there's no way on earth they can possibly "work" 400,000 acres nor does anyone, even using our wildest imagination, require 400,000 acres to provide for their support and comfort. If the person stops using the land then it's "abandonment" and any other person can establish the "right to possess" the land with their labor for their support and comfort. One thing is sure. We wouldn't have vacant lots all over the place because people would occupy and put that land to constructive use.

Sometimes I'm amazed at the misinformation that some people have. The Native American people understood the laws of nature because they live as one with nature. When Locke was providing the foundation of Natural Law to establish Natural Rights the Native Americans already knew it. It was those that came to America that had forgotten the Laws of Nature and they had to read Locke to remember.

Finally Locke would have loved the following statement because it fully expresses the fact that land (or anything from nature) cannot really be owned by anyone and only labor establishes the right to use the land

The Native Americans were not primitive people because they understood what so many of us seem incapable of understand today..

Do you realize how stupid this really is?

How is the person going to exercise their Natural Right of Property when the "ownership of property" denies them their Natural Right of Property?

Where are the open plains with millions of buffalo making their annual migration? Where is that 40 acres of rich unspoiled bottom-land where they can claim for their own with their labor? And why should the have to go anywhere with all of the wealth being created by all of the American workers with the labor they own, labor that does not belong to the capitalist, but that the capitalist has stolen based upon the laws of "ownership of property" that the capitalist invented? Why should any of these workers that are creating many times more that what is necessary for the support and comfort of every person in the United States have to go anywhere?

How about the capitalists stop stealing the labor from the workers with laws of ownership of property, start providing a living wage so that the workers have the support and comfort their labor entitles them to, so that workers don't have to force the nefarious capitalists to go somewhere else so that a new capitalism based upon the Natural Right of Property can be realized in the future.

 

in your quote 'Nothing else is individually owned because everything else is owned by all of the members of all of the species.' , that is called socialism and cannot exist in capitalism which respects the natural right of property for the individual.

when you see john locke say 'The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the
support and comfort of their being' in section 26 of john lockes 'Second Treatise of Civil Government', you see a group of men, and i see a group of individual men.

the right of property today ought to belong to the individual, not to a group of people. you are treating a symptom with your interpretation of john locke by attempting to redistribute wealth on the back of the capitalist.

the cure lies in returning the natural right of property to the individual peasant, so they are not dependent upon other royal land owners for survival, who do steal the product of their labors under lawful government force.

for this to be pragmatic today, it would have to be by empowering the peasant with the divine rights of kings, or in today's words with capital to be capitalists, either with land or money, to take risks for rewards while under-leveraged until they can manage a greater risk appetite.

 

You haven't even attempted to understand the reasoning and conclusion Locke makes in Chapter 5. You're stuck in an outmoded mindset by trying to make Locke fit into "economic systems" that are based upon "ownership" when nature doesn't grant ownership of anything but the "self" to the individual. Try reading the following:

"The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the
support and comfort of their being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally
produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are
produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a
private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they
are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there
must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before
they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man."

Chapter 5 address who we can individually take from nature that which we require for survival, based upon Natural Law, and make it our own to possess for use and to consume as we need in providing for our "support and comfort" (survival). The Natural Right of Property is the Natural Right to Use what nature provides and it is our "labor" that we "own" that that establishes our the "Right to Possess" (not own) to fulfill our need to "use and consume" what nature provides. Locke addresses mankind but this applies to every member of every species that must depend upon what nature provides for the survival of the individual members.

Capitalism, as we know it, doesn't respect the Natural Right of Property. It respects the man-made "statutory ownership of property" that doesn't have any foundation in nature nor any connection to what the individual requires for their survival. Man-made laws of ownership can, in theory, lead to the extinction of mankind because the laws are not based upon survival of the species. The theory "ownership of property can result in extinction" can literally be proven by a test I provided earlier in this thread.

The Natural Right of Property does allow the person to acquire possession and gives them the "right to possess that property" based upon what nature allows for the survival of the species. They don't "own" the property" but do have a "right to possess the property" and can exchange the property they possess for property that someone else possesses based upon their Natural Right of Use of property in providing for their survival (support and comfort).

Capitalism is based upon the exchange of property that people have a "right to possess" and Natural Law establishes what we have a Right to Possess. Our statutory laws of "ownership" are not based upon what we have a right to possess as individuals.

"Ownership of property without the Natural Right to Possess for Use" is why capitalism and socialism worldwide are failing and that is reflected by the fact 750 million people worldwide don't have enough food to eat and 40 million American households can't afford to pay their bills.

You argue for man-made laws of ownership of property that can be shown to potentially lead to the very extinction of mankind and that has resulted in hundreds of millions of people dying.

When we look even deeper the man-made invention of "ownership of property" is the primary reason behind wars of aggression between nations. Wars of aggression are always based upon the desire to acquire "ownership" of the land, natural resources, and the people of a foreign nation. Why is ISIS fighting in Iraq today? ISIS fights to "own the land, natural resources, and people" that they subjugate by conquest. Why did Nazi Germany invade the other countries of Europe? To "own the land, natural resources, and the people" of those European nations.

Read the following and apply it in the broader sense by applying it to nations:

"And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any
difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the
common things of nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it.
So that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any
doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went
together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon,
so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This
left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the
right of others; what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen."

The Natural Right of Property not only removes the foundation for conflict between individuals over property but also removes the foundation for conflict between nations because "ownership of property" no longer exists. Only the "Right to Possess based upon Use" exists and it is easily recognized.

 

when john locke wrote his doctrine he lived in times when civilized people did not function the way the native americans or tribal people did. you cannot interpret john locke to mean he wanted the civilized people of his time to live like hunter gatherers.

when john locke says no one has private dominion exclusive of mankind, he meant kings, not capitalists who make use of private dominion.

"The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the
support and comfort of their being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally
produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are
produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a
private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they
are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there
must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before
they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man."

title of ownership of property or land fulfills john lockes dream of right to use, and right to possess property, or land.

you're confusing the way the kings of england owned land, and the way the capitalists of America own land, who defeated england for the very freedom to own that land.

when a capitalist owns land the capitalist makes use of it under a shelter of freedom, a liberty the founding fathers sacrificed for so that the American peasants could have the privilege of land ownership, and be capitalists themselves.

your interpretation of john locke removes that shelter of freedom, and directs the capitalist under the threat of lawful government force or tyranny, to capitalize on property you feel is a most efficient use of that property or land.

the individual should be free to capitalize or 'make use of' property however they see fit under liberty.

 

NO, NO, NO!

You're using the word "Title" as in "Title of Ownership" where the Title itself grants the (statutory) Right of Possession..

Locke is using the word "Title" in the context of "Recognition" where the person establishes a Right of Possession based upon their Natural Rights.

The word "Title" can either be a "Grant" such as the "Statutory Title of Ownership" or it can be a "Recognition" of something such as the Recognition of the Person's Right to Possess Property based upon Natural Law. :

No, Locke did not expect people to live like hunter-gathers (that have the identical Natural Right "Of Property" that anyone else does) but you must also understand that "commerce" is not a Natural Right of the Person either. That doesn't imply any negative connotation related to commerce and if you actually read Chapter 5 then you know that Locke advocates commerce. Read Chapter 5 and you'll know why Locke advocates commerce. Once you figure that out then get back to me and tell me why Locke advocates commerce. Let's see if you can figure something out for yourself.

 

You misquoted Locke.

What Locke actually said:

...This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it, it hath by his labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

The part you omitted is in Blue Font.

Very clearly, Locke is talking about the ownership of Real Estate or Real Property and not the relationship between employers and employees.

That is not what Locke said.

You disingenuously omitted the part that says: " It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it..."

Can you find hamburger patties in a common state in nature?

The employer is only obligated to pay Market Labor Rates and nothing more.

"Support and comfort" are subjective.

Yes, that is part of the Voluntary Labor Agreement. If you don't like the arrangement, you're free to shop around for a better Voluntary Labor Agreement or become self-employed.

No, it is not. The operand is: " It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it..."

Based upon the Laws of Nature it is the capitalist that needs the labor workers and not the worker that needs the capitalist. Because this turns the world around it is the capitalist that must pay for the support and comfort of the worker that, by working for the capitalist, provides for the support and comfort of the capitalist.

And you're misquoting Locke with the same misunderstanding.

No, the various tribal groups were primitive cultures who had not yet advanced from the Stone Age into the Bronze or Iron Ages.

Your "Native Americans" made war upon each other, engaged in slavery and committed genocide.

They will have to acquire the Capital to obtain undeveloped or developed land.

 

First let me thank you for directly addressing the purpose of the thread that is about "interpretation" and I believe in responding to this one point I address all other points.

I did not misquote Locke but did pull from context with reason. To fully understand the Natural Right "Of Property" the person must read all of Chapter 5 and also understand what Locke was arguing against in his positive assertions throughout his Second Treatise of Civil Government.

Locke does not directly refer to an employer-employee relationship but he does establish the logical foundation for it and an important part of that logic is included in one line that you cite where Locke states, "For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to..."

So the labor of the person, regardless of what that labor is, belongs exclusively to the person and to no other person.

Locke also repeatedly establishes that the labor of the person (understanding that "labor" is an extension of the "self" that is the only thing that "nature" grants individual ownership of) is for the "the support and comfort of their being." Generally speaking Locke refers to the physical labor that is an extension of the "self" but mental labor (thought) is also exclusively owned by the person based upon "ownership" of the self. Physical labor is even a result of mental labor and both are equal because both are an extension of the self. This is important if we address the future because we know that human labor is becoming obsolete but we can save that for another discussion.

So let's address each individual in the employer-employee relationship.

The actual labor of the employee that could be the receptionist, janitor, or production worker belongs exclusively to the employee and not to the employer but the labor they expend does not directly benefit the employee because it doesn't provide for their support and comfort.

The employer doesn't "own" anything the employee does from answering the phone by the receptionist, cleaning the toilet by the janitor, or the "widget" that the production worker manufactures in the shop, but the employer needs what the labor of the employee provides with their labor for "support and comfort" of the employer.

The fundamental "employment contract" comes down to a basic exchange of "support and comfort" that the employer needs but that is owned by the employee based upon their labor that is traded for "support and comfort" that the employee needs that the employer is required to provide so that the contract is a mutually beneficial contract. If the employer, in taking the labor of the employee (that they do not own) for their own support and comfort, fails to provide for the support and comfort of the employee then it is the theft of the labor from the employee that is for the employee's support and comfort.

The exchange is based upon "support and comfort" where each receives their "support and comfort" from the other person.

We can also note that for the employment contract to be beneficial to the employee the employer must provide more that the person could acquire a right to on their own by directly taking from nature that which they require for their support and comfort.

This is not hard for the employer to do because, as Locke points out, man by being a "specialist" (e.g. a farmer that uses a small piece of land) increases the production from nature for use in their support and comfort by 100 to 1,000 times more that nature alone provides for the "generalist" (e.g. the nomad that can require thousands to tens of thousands of acres of land) taking only what nature provides on it's own to provide for their support and comfort.

Commerce, which includes employment, is about members of society being specialists as opposed to generalists and as specialists we produce far more than we could even imagine as generalists. We know, for example, that the workers (employees) in United States produce at least four times more than the workers require for their "support and comfort" but we also know that the level of "support and comfort" provided for because of specialization and commerce is many, many time what the "support and comfort" would be if our society was based upon the "generalist" that, with their labor, takes directly from nature what they personally require where no commerce existed at all. The "generalist" is incapable of mining the materials, processing those materials, building an automobile, refining the oil for fuel, and grading the land so that they can drive from Point A to Point B. That is a "comfort" provided for by specialization and commerce. The "generalist" cannot become a medical doctor and modern medicine is a product of specialization and commerce.

People produce far more than what they need for their "support and comfort" with their labor today because we're all "specialists" today and every worker has the Natural Right "Of Property" to their "support and comfort" when they exchange their labor, that they exclusively own, with the employer that can use their labor for the employer's support and comfort.

Intellectually the hump people need to get over is in understanding that the employer-employee contract is fundamentally based upon "support and comfort" but once they realize that then all of the pieces fall into place. The employee has the responsibility use their "labor" (physical and/or mental that both belong exclusively to the employee) to perform the tasks assigned by the employer that provide for the employer's support and comfort and the employer is responsible for assigning tasks that fund the compensation necessary for the support and comfort to the employee in exchange for the employee's labor. Both employer and employee fulfilling their individual responsibilities results in a mutually beneficial employment contract.

Final note. Support (survival) is not subjective and is quantifiable in today's society (MIT quantified minimum "support" with their Living Wage Calculator). Comfort is that which is in excess of what is necessary for support and it's not subjective but instead is variable. The person only has a Right of Property to their support and comfort and we can also easily see, and arguably quantify, when a person has so much wealth that they can never use it all in their lifetime for their support and comfort and they do not have a Right of Property to the excess.

 

At least by voting, Democrats did not forfeit their right to complain.

"To err is human, to complain is a Divine Right."

 

To understand the political society you need to go further into reading the Second Treatise of Civil Government that was the foundation for the American political ideology and, in doing so, you would learn that limiting the vote to just the "citizens" and not all of the "people" living within the jurisdiction and under the authority of government is a violation of the Natural Rights of those that are non-citizen permanent residents. That's why Jefferson stated, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" in the Declaration of Independence and why in the US Constitution in both Article I and the 17th Amendment establish that the "people" and not just citizens are to select/elect members of the House and Senate.

So read on because there is much to be learned from Locke if we are to understand the United States that was established based upon the Natural Rights of the People/Person based upon Natural Law that Locke provides the foundation for understanding.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

 

I know that your heart's in the right place, Shiva, but I find the logic of Robert Anton Wilson and Lou Rollins more advanced and compelling than that of Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Edmund Burke, John Locke, and Thomas Paine.

Natural Law: Don't Put a Rubber on Your Willy by Robert Anton Wilson
https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Dont...tural+law:++don't+put+a+rubber+on+your+willie

The Myth of Natural Rights by Lou Rollins
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Natural...22&sr=1-1&keywords=the+myth+of+natural+rights