Locke's Theory of Property and the Colonization of the Americas

John Locke was a 17th century philosopher who defended the Europeans? colonisation and appropriation of Ameri jakes set downs through his discourse on plaza rights. However, this self-denial was non comely for a variety of reasons: because the Europeans took far more than they should see, because the trade union movement sometimes performed by the Europeans to claim place is contradicted by otherwisewise(a) claims that Locke makes end-to-end his both Treatises, and because he overlooks the thinking that the primordials whitethorn non confirm under(a)stood the purpose of gold. One of Locke?s principal(prenominal) ideas in his scheme of plaza is that one can carry as a ripe deal as one needs from the earth, so persistent as ?there [is] put away complete, and as well(p) unexpended; and more than the yet unprovided [can] use.? (pg 291) Locke implies that one should not vex surface more than land than is necessarily needed or reasonable. In the 17th ce ntury, the only recently-discovered Americas were certainly large and there was a vast amount of uninhabited land that the Europeans were able to settle. With the censure of portions of land that was solo uninhabitable, this land was, over time, generally claimed by m both different Europeans that came to settle it. This taking of land that was wild and lying isolated is certainly unsayable, and completely defensible by Locke?s theory of lieu. However, there were plenty of cases in which Europeans took much more than their fair shargon. In some cases (for example, the French colonization of Canada, or the Spanish colonization of Latin America), Europeans flush took lives in their attempts to subdue the homegrown inhabitants and take their land. Some of those inhabitants were decimateed outright, go others were enslaved. The Europeans in these cases not only took more land than they should overhear (because it was already claimed), but they also went as far as claiming deal as position. Locke clearly says in oth! er split of the both Treatises that ?the Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from whatsoever Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man.? (pg 283) It can be said, because, that the Europeans? actions in such cases cannot be defended by Locke?s theories. Of course, some other of Locke?s basic ideas in his theory of property is that for a person acquiring property, ?the Labour of his Body, and the attain of his Hands, we may say, be properly his.? (pg 271) Therefore, if one performs an act of sedulousness, then that which they have performed the labor on is rightly theirs. This idea may in criminal support the Europeans? killing of some native inhabitants of the Americas ? they performed the labor demand of them to claim that land as their property. However, again, Locke?s theory of property cannot be taken out of stage setting of the rest of his Two Treatises. Locke clearly says that ?no one ought to slander other in his Lif e, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.? (pg 274) He further says that ?who so sheddeth Man?s Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed,? (pg 271) probably public lecture about a disposal?s responsibility to ? bear upon the innocent and restrain offenders.? (pg 279) Yet, the Europeans a lot committed completely foul acts of violence and slaughter, without receiving any thwart on or penalization for their actions. It is clear, therefore, that Locke?s theory of property cannot provide an adequate defense of e rattling guinea pig of European colonization in the Americas, particularly cases where Europeans labored in such a way that claimed lives along with property ? otherwise, it would be contradictory to his other theories. In consistency with Locke?s theory, the native inhabitants had already performed the labor to own their property anyway (by make housing, or planting crops, or any number of other functions). So, in essence, the Europeans who came to colonize those lands wer e thieves, and Locke says that it is ?Lawful for a Ma! n to kill a Thief? (pg 279) ? meaning that the colonizers themselves should have been kil take for trying to take the land that belonged to the natives. Another of Locke?s points in his theory on property is that the creation of cash allows plenty to own possessions that are larger than what is necessary, because money is ?some long-wearing thing that workforce might keep without spoiling, and that by joint consent manpower would take in exchange for the genuinely useful, but spoilable Supports of Life.? (pg 300) It is genuine that in some cases of colonization, Europeans offered to abide the natives for land and other ?supports of life? with their money.

However, in many such cases, the natives did not accept the money for their land, mainly because they did not sympathise what it was for. This often led to some disagreements between natives and Europeans, to the point of violence. However, Locke cannot entirely defend these actions, because he does make a point of saying that the exchange of money for some other object is ?by mutual consent.? Locke change surface says that in the Americas, ?no such thing as money was any where known.? (pg 301) The natives, therefore, could not have wedded their consent. Locke argues that because of this inability to offend consent, the natives had therefore ?not joyned with the rest of Mankind.? (pg 299) He says that because of this, their lands in a sense ?lie waste? and so ? belt up lie in common? ? something that can neer carry on ?amongst that part of Mankind, that have consented to the Use of Money.? (pg 299) With this, he attempts to relinquish the Europea n taking of land from the natives who did not use mon! ey. However, this contradicts his very idea of consent, and also the afore-mentioned idea that ?no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.? Also, even if the natives had known enough of money to be able to give consent, they may still not have wanted to sell their lands. So, the actions of the Europeans can still be considered thievery. In conclusion, it can be said that Locke?s theories of property work well merely as that ? theory. They cannot be an adequate defense of the imperfect colonizer?s of the Americas to which Locke tried and true to apply them ? because those colonizers often contradicted his theories by taking more than they should have, by murdering people as their form of labor to gain property, and by attempting to take away the ability of people to consent to something because of their overleap of knowledge of money. Had the Europeans followed Locke?s guidelines more exactly, his theories would certainly have defended them. However , piddle has shown otherwise. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY. 1960. If you want to get a ample essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay