Author Archives: johnlocke

It is my firm belief that one of the great purposes in the lives of men are protecting those rights with which they are endowed firmly and without compromise. If anyone should try to take such rights away, it would be a violation of my rights as a citizen of this nation, which is nothing short of a crime. The government today exists to protect our rights, and expecting it to act against its citizens achieves just the opposite. Here I address the work of a John Stuart Mill, who recently threw his support behind the idea that the Greatest Happiness, or the collective happiness of society is an end that justifies the means, which would be depriving a few members of society of their property.

I am referring, of course, to the proposed Millionaire Tax. In his work, Mill has stated that such a tax would better society by producing the greatest happiness in the form of distributable funds that would then used in favor of society’s poorer citizens, through things such as welfare, or housing developments and the like. I fundamentally oppose such legislation for another of reasons.

First and foremost, the government should only be called upon to act in situations of public interest. There are issues between citizens that the government should have no power over disputing, and I believe that this is one of those issues. Mill has stated that across the nation, there are several excessive statistics that point to a problem of mass homelessness and the need to protect them through funds. However, I am inclined to believe that what citizens choose to do with their wealth is a private matter. Having a million dollars does not mean that you are the reason that someone is homeless. The actions of millionaires and their pursuit of wealth and happiness should remain protected from government overreach.

The second reason is my strong belief in man’s right to property. The citizens of this nation have earned their wealth, and have built their property up to where it is today. It would simply be unfair for the government to seize this and freely distribute it to those who are less fortunate. What is considered private property must never be touched by the government, and those who own it should never be told what they can and can’t do with it.

I firmly believe in the right to property, and Mill seems to trample on these beliefs in his search for a greater happiness. While I too, defend man’s right to pursue their own happiness, I firmly draw the line at pursuing happiness at the expense of the happiness of others. Mill has stated in his work that in some instances, it is okay to ask a few members of society to make sacrifices that will ultimately better a society that is larger than them. I disagree. I believe that each and every person has a right to protect their happiness and property, and it is simply unfair to even consider asking the government to target some of its own people in the form of an oppressive tax.

It is not entitlement or greed that makes me say these things. Though it is none of my concern, I do wish that people are able to achieve the happiness that they pursue. But allowing such a government overstepping of boundaries would only open door to an even more oppressive future. A millionaire’s tax would be only the first in a long line of government acts of tyranny, which should never be allowed to happen. Therefore, I, John Locke, refute Mill’s work and stand by my beliefs.

In the blog “Mill on the Utility of Red Meat,” the author argues that “we should all strive for vegetarianism,” and that certain moral sanctions should be put in place to promote this particular diet. However, this issue is ostensibly private, and should not be thought of in terms of the public. Locke would argue that subsistence is a matter to be determined by the individual, not the collective public. This is made clear in his assertion that “nobody can deny but the nourishment is his” (28). In declaring that nourishment is the individual’s own choice and possession, Locke makes clear that this is not to be infringed upon by any sort of legal or moral mechanism.

Furthermore, the idea of establishing vegetarianism as a collective lifestyle is in direct violation of the sovereignty of the individual. Locke argues that “The equality of men by nature…[is] beyond all question,” and that man’s sovereignty is “in common with the rest of mankind.” (5, 29). This assertion recognizes the total equality of every man, and that any man who attempts to assert his own will over others is infringing upon their natural rights. Coercing everyone to become vegetarian would be a direct infringement upon this natural right of individual sovereignty, as it would be enforcing a lifestyle that is beneficial to some individuals upon everyone else.

This is established by John Locke that “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind…that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (6). Although the author of “Mill on the Utility of Meat” makes an argument that red meat is detrimental to health, there are many scientific sources that would refute such a claim. Moreover, there are many benefits to the consumption of meat. Those who have anemia, for instance, would benefit from iron found in meat. Although supplements are available, this would be a burden upon the individual, as they may be far costlier than meat itself. Additionally, vegetarianism carries many health concerns, as many people who partake in this lifestyle find themselves deficient in necessary nutrients.

Thus, such a decision as to whether an individual should consume meat should be left to that individual. As Locke claims, “whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence;” we can rightfully determine that any attempt to dictate what man subsists upon would be wrong (25). Because individuals are capable of reason, they can determine what is most beneficial to their health themselves, and any mechanism other than their own reason that would enforce a specific lifestyle would be unjust.

Not only would this infringe upon the individual in terms of their sovereignty, it would also be a violation of property. Locke asserts that the “private dominion over the earth, and all inferior or irrational creatures” should not be infringed upon (23). Furthermore, he posits that men also have “reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being.” (26) This claim directly refutes any support of collective vegetarianism, as meat is the property of man. Man, through his claim to property, and through his innate ability to reason, can determine for himself how best to use his own property. To infringe upon that right, would be to infringe upon man’s right to make the most of his resources in the manner he chooses. Accordingly, “every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself.” (27)

Therefore, it is a clear violation of man’s right to life, liberty, and property to put in place moral or legal sanctions requiring vegetarianism. Because man is able to reason, and is therefore rightfully able to discern how he subsists, no individual should be obstructed from choosing what he wants to eat. If an individual wishes to eat only plants, they should be absolutely free to do so. However, requiring that everyone else do the same degrades the rights of the individual. Therefore, this issue is private, and not public; man has the right to his meat.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/a54533/is-being-a-vegetarian-bad-for-your-brain/
https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/animal-product/meat.html

We live in a capitalist society in which we require money to do just about anything, including obtaining and protecting our natural rights. With your person, which is your property, one can use their own labor to obtain more property. In this case, money is the property you obtain. Because we also live in a political society, we look trust our federal government to aid in the protection of these rights as well. That is why, in the early 1900’s there was the implementation of a minimum wage to protect women and minors, to ensure that they are getting adequate compensation for the labor they put in. This helped bridge the gap between men and women. However, it wasn’t until 1939 that a minimum wage was set for men, women, and children, now providing equal treatment of all members of society. The minimum wage was intended to cover the cost of living.

Since the last time the minimum wage was raised, in 2002, the cost of living has still gone up, leaving the minimum wage an inadequate amount to sustain oneself. With inadequate labor compensation, one becomes unable to afford, for example, their home, or even just the means to keep their jobs (clothes, transportation, etc.), and eventually food to survive. Our natural rights of Life, Liberty, and Property rely on the acquisition of money through labor to sustain them. When one is unable to obtain adequate wage for their labor, they are unable to retain property, but more importantly, unable to sustain life. When the government no longer keeps up with the ever-rising costs of living, they threaten these rights, resulting in a government no longer working for the best interest of its people. A government working to protect its people’s rights, property and life, would at least try to raise the minimum wage to that more in line with the current cost of living.

It is important that the minimum wage to be raised only to what is required to live because any higher could potentially infringe on the natural rights of (small) business owners. As the wage increases, the business owners’ properties become threatened, as they may not be able to afford their employees’ higher wages and what is needed to maintain the business (the building, materials, etc.). If the government allows the rights of business owners to be subject to losing property, they are no longer working to protect their right either. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the government to protect individuals, both employee and employer, and their right to property by raising the minimum wage to match the current cost of living.