What do those (I'm looking at you Finny) who claim that Locke espoused a theory allowing unlimited capitalist appropriation think of this passage from the First Treatise:
But we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God the Lord and Father of all has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it: and therefore no man could ever have a just power over the life of another by right of property in land or possessions; since it would always be a sin, in any man of estate, to let his brother perish for want of affording him relief out of his plenty. As [48] justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him; so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise: and a man can no more justly make use of another’s necessity, to force him to become his vassal, by with-holding that relief, God requires him to afford to the wants of his brother, than he that has more strength can seize upon a weaker, master him to his obedience, and with a dagger at his throat offer him death or slavery.
§. 42.
Doesn't the logical implications of this doctrine lead to a modern welfare state? Doesn't that make Locke an early social democrat rather than a supporter of laissez faire?
Originally posted by @no1marauderWhere in your post does it say “the state”? You seem to infering it in belongs in place of the occurring phrase: “a man” throughought your quotation.
What do those (I'm looking at you Finny) who claim that Locke espoused a theory allowing unlimited capitalist appropriation think of this passage from the First Treatise:
But we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God the Lord and Father of all has given no one of his children such a propert ...[text shortened]... tate? Doesn't that make Locke an early social democrat rather than a supporter of laissez faire?
Originally posted by @joe-shmoThe title of the book is "Two Treatises of Government". The passage is part of a long argument denying that one man can hold absolute power over others through government.
Where in your post does it say “the state”? You seem to infering it in belongs in place of the occurring phrase: “a man” throughought your quotation.
Moreover, this is a "right" belonging to every man and the very purpose of government in Lockean thought is the protection of Natural Rights:
but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it:
so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise:
The idea that this is just some exhortation for individuals to be more charitable is ludicrous.