Category Archives: Locke

by | December 15, 2017 · 1:48 am

Response to Locke’s The Worth of Labor

John Locke argues that capitalism and objectivism innately infringe on one’s personal freedoms and participates are morally wrong. However, Locke’s own guidelines of human fundamental rights; life, liberty and property, are insightful of how backwards this argument is. Fundamentally, a capitalistic society protects one’s personal life, liberty and property. Locke’s altruistic viewpoint infringes on the personal right to keep what one has earned.

True altruistic behavior is selfless in action, but an Locke’s altruistic viewpoint of anti-objectivism sets impossible standards for all of society. How can one foolishly judge morality based on equality of goods and willingness to give up what they have earned for those who have not worked as hard to be in the same position as themselves.

How can you be the judge of  what is moral or immoral when you don’t even have the tenacity to acquire your own selfish goals. When you hit a rock in the road you expect others to sacrifice their own hard earned work to order to lazily acquire your own.

I too believe that man must uphold three things in order to obtain a life worthy of living, these virtues being reason, purpose and self-esteem. Reason as a tool of knowledge, purpose as his choice of (rational) happiness and self-esteem as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness.

You claim that man loses their “personal liberty” when working at a low wage. Lets relate this to my objectivist values. We can see personal liberty as one’s own purpose, that is man’s choice of happiness which allows him/her to succeed. If man’s objective is to obtain more money then they must do so while still upholding their and others virtues. To place oneself in a position where their own self esteem can be compromised due to a “low” wage is irrational and only means they are not working towards their best interest. To demand your employer increase your wages in order for your own selfish desire to achieve purpose is to tear down their virtues. As I’ve always said man is entitled to his own happiness. However, he must achieve it himself, not on the accord of leniency or sympathy of another. Others must not be forced give up part of their livelihood to help satisfy others needs. In your case employers must not be forced to give up their purpose and self-esteem by enforcing them to give up more money.

If a man/woman truly needs something they will overcome any obstacle it takes to earn it. This way they will be respecting their virtues and not infringing on others. Man has free will and is not bound to any single craft or location which is why I am astonished at the fact that you bring up the outlier that is California. If man is not happy then they are more than welcome to leave whatever location they’re in that is keeping them from achieving their own personal greatness/capital goals. However, if they choose to stay in a difficult position and gripe at the difficulty of an institutionally set system that requires them to be self-reliant on how successful they are, they are at fault and will suffer. A true objectivist knows their right to free will and will use their reason to ask themselves why they are where they are. If the goal is to obtain money then the objectivist will bear through low points as they know they are on the journey towards achieving their greatness, and if it fails then man must re-align himself.

To me it seems like most people rely on altruist beliefs in the hope that one day someone will sacrifice their hard earning in order to help them obtain happiness. As I said earlier, man is entitled to his own happiness but must do so while respecting everyone else’s.

Comments Off on Response to Locke’s The Worth of Labor

Filed under Locke, Rand

by | December 12, 2017 · 7:35 am

Gun Control Locke vs. Mill

Mill argues that gun control is more necessary now, in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that occurred earlier this year, than ever because of the danger this poses to all citizens. However, Locke would disagree with this argument. He would argue that enforcing gun control limits the right to property that is inherent to all citizens and therefore is not a public issue that should be legislated upon.

The blog post “Gun Control Regulation Needed Now More Than Ever” argues that abuses to gun access has lead to an increase in gun violence and asks, “How many others need to be killed before people are willing to set aside their personal desires?” Although this was written after an instance of gun abuse, Locke would still argue that this was an exception committed by someone who is not capable of full reason and therefore that person must be punished by society. In The Second Treatises of Civil Government Locke says, ““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).

Locke’s emphasis on the value of life, liberty, and property allow him to dictate what he deems a public or a private issue. Locke believes that public issues should not be discusses by the government because they are important only to the individual they regard. The right to own a gun would fall into this public category because they are the property of the individual who owns them and therefore a natural right.

The blog post argues, “Our duty as citizens is to maximize enjoyment. Therefore, people shouldn’t be denied pleasures, such as guns for hunting, as long as they aren’t harmful to others. Though it’s imperative that we don’t continue to partake in foolishness by supplying people with too much weaponry.” Locke would disagree with this by saying that maximizing enjoyment and minimizing the amount of weaponry an individual can own infringes on their right to property and therefore is not a response of the government to control.

While Mill’s argument about the importance of gun control is only intended to protect and support the community, Locke would be against it because of its attempt to control citizen’s personal property. To Locke, the right to own a gun should not be taken away from reasonable and rational citizens merely as a response to irrational citizens that are few and far between. Locke would call for consequences on these citizens before he would support gun control because when a citizen harms another citizen it becomes a public issue and can be legislated upon.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke, Mill

by | · 5:39 am

It is not my Responsibility to End Homelessness

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.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

by | · 3:46 am

Who is John Locke?

Today, we live in a modern and capitalist world. Upon the shoulders of extraordinary individuals and economic elites, society has blossomed with its many bountiful opportunities. Imagine my shock when I had opened the news this morning, only to find John Locke himself propose the preposterous idea that with a modernized, capitalist world comes the need to restrict and tame the wild beast of capitalism.

How absolutely absurd. He claims that “by failing to provide a sufficient wage, people become incapable of obtaining those three essential rights of [life, liberty, and property].” If he were to open his eyes and realize the endless opportunities that lie in wait if one only possesses the capacity and intellect to seize it, then he would not claim such a thing. How must it be the government’s responsibility to control and pander to the people’s need as if we were children instead of the reasoned beings that we are? I suppose he must want to grant the government power to further their holds on this country. If they were to dictate how much the value of labor of on a whim based on some flimsy altruistic moral, then it is only a slippery slope away from them making some might moral claim to restrict our freedoms “for the greater good” of our the nation or even ourselves.

He even goes as far as to garner the sympathy of the reader by saying that “an individual must work 92 hours a week in order to afford a one bedroom apartment in California at minimum wage.” There is great liberty and choice in that. No one has forced that individual to stay in California and work at that particular job. If it’s too difficult and seeming unreasonable, then quit and move away. Once the demand for that job goes down, then by basic economic processes, the state or the boss will realize that their wage is unsatisfactory. By simply going elsewhere for a job, the individual satisfies supply and demand, and there is no need for a higher tax in order to give more money to those with no skill simply because we feel bad that they are “forced” to suffer through a long job to survive.

As I’ve said, “the minimum wage is a tax on the successful. The market will naturally dictate the minimum wage without the government stepping in to determine arbitrary limits.” One only needs to look at obviously economic consequence to see why raising the minimum wage is an absurd idea. Tell me, John Locke, how raising the minimum wage will help the young adult when he loses his job because he is too unskilled to be hired for such a low wage. “The artificially high wages forced on the economy by compulsory unionism imposed economic hardships on other groups such as non-union works and on unskilled labor which is eventually squeezed out of the market.” What will the benefit of hiring teenagers over the usage of automation in today’s world? What does the immigrant do when he’s excluded from the market because the government will not allow him to sell the worth of his skills that he needs to survive? Raising the minimum wage is a twisted, cruel lie that panders to our idea of noble morality through the guise of altruism in order to destroy us on an economic level.

To you, John Locke, I must ask: who is John Galt? We are.

But you, John Locke, who are you?

https://sites.dwrl.utexas.edu/liberrimus/2017/09/17/the-worth-of-labor/

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke, Rand

by | · 2:40 am

Wage vs The Cost of Survival: It Matters Not

The government should not be tasked with implementing/maintaining a minimum wage for its nation. Alternatively, the capitalist society in which we live maintains a government tasked to protect the environment which only aims to provide a man the means to express and use his own judgment to pursue what he needs to sustain himself, not to provide, necessarily, those such to survive. While, yes, it may have been important to implement a program such as minimum wage to protect to labor of women in children so they are not subjected to slave labor, it should not be and is not the job of the government to force an employer to pay the employee a specific amount solely because the employee requires it to maintain his property and life or to meet the cost of living

In our capitalist society, if an employer pays their employee an insufficient amount for the cost the employee deems necessary to survive, the employee has the ability to pursue a job that could support the standard of living they would desire to live. The employer is not required to make sure their employee gets to sleep in a bed at night, especially if it means the employer is sacrificing their own profit. This “not requirement”, if you will, is only intensified if the employer does not deem the work of the employee to be worth any more than they are already receiving.

This goes both ways, as a man has the right to utilize his own judgment, he also has the right to not offer his labor for a payment he does not deem fair, either. An employer can choose not to pay for work he does not think is adequate, and an employee can choose not to work for a wage he, too, does not deem adequate. The ensuing results are the problems of those individuals. One of which could be that the employer might find themselves in a position with no employees. This should signify to that employer that their judgment is wrong and would need to offer more pay, which the employee may then find adequate. Oppositely, the worker may realize he has been aiming for a pay for a service that does not require that expense.

Being unable to afford clothes or transportation to maintain a job is not a threat to one’s rights nor is being unable to keep one’s home. However, when a person becomes unable to follow their better judgment (of finding a job or jobs that will supply them the means to live how they want or to work a job they do not agree with to live), that is when rights begin to be threatened. To elaborate, the purpose of (our) government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Those rights are, in actuality, the right of a man over his life and to act according to his own judgment, not to property or a job or a better job. Therefore, government intervention might be necessary when individuals are forced to act against that judgment, provided their judgment is correct.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke, Rand

by | December 10, 2017 · 10:11 pm

Refutation of Collective Vegetarianism

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

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

by | September 18, 2017 · 1:46 am

Of Open Carry Rights

We consider that men have a natural right to their property and their life, as it was given by God to the first men upon earth and his descendants. It stands to reason that a man who obtains property through just means and maintains that property with a sound mind should have absolute authority over what belongs to him. Then, even weapons bought through the labor of a man should belong to him and the right to which not be infringed upon. This is a private right: if such a person is of sound mind and acting in self-perseverance, then should that weapon be discharged at another who would threaten life or property, the owner of said life or property was well within his rights to take that life. The question I ask is whether that same man has the right to take the weapon into public. If the man cannot enact revenge for the loss of property to another citizen, why should he need to take the gun outside his home? If it is the charge of the government to punish those who break the law, why should the man need the gun to kill a criminal after the act was committed?

Within here lies the distinction: a man has the right to self-defense in the case that his life, property, or liberties are being immediately threatened, but what of that of the strangers around him? If his government has been tasked with keeping the peace and enacting consequences in a way that single citizens cannot, then it should be said that the man has no right to kill a criminal on his own. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the man shouldn’t have the right to his weapons, but what of the liberties of that man’s fellow citizens? Could it be said that each person has a right to their sense of safety? If the threat to safety is great enough that people cannot reasonably choose to participate in their civil and public liberties, then the presence of that property does thus infringe on the liberties of others.

Each man also has his inherent right to life, also given to him by God. Should that man do nothing wrong in the eyes of both his natural rights and the rights he consented to within his government, the unnatural death of that man would be a grave misfortune; one that should result in outrage. If one man’s right to property infringes upon another’s right to life, then we must consider which is the worst charge. This makes open carry a public issue.

This is particularly true in cases where civil protests become violent at the hands of counter-protestors or other citizens, which has happened in recent history. Such situations are particularly inappropriate as people cannot express opinions in civil discourse without the threat to their life—a most grievous offense if the government remains on the side of those who would use the right to their weapons to silence those who would oppose such rights for their own safety. To let one man carry a weapon in public to ensure his right to property is a violation of other people’s rights if their right to life cannot be reasonably secured, especially during civil discourse.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

Tagged as ,

by | September 17, 2017 · 8:45 pm

Unalienable Rights Through DACA

How would you feel if one day your life was going great, you had a future and the next it was all unclear and taken away from you? Immigrants under the DACA order felt that way on September 5 because of Donald Trump.

DACA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is an executive order that was put in place during Obama’s administration. Today, Donald Trump wants to rescind it. An order that permitted certain children to be allowed into the country, as long as they met the criteria. The program protects them from deportation, granting them a two-year reprieve that could be renewed.

Those children were allowed into the states without repercussions due to the fact that they were going to complete their education. Those “dreamers” now no longer have a choice to fulfill their dreams by going to school and being successful in life thanks to President Trump.

The executive order is considered a public issue because it infringes on the well-being of the people. Parents bring their children across the border to make a better life for them. They can go to school, get a good education, go to college and have a successful career–something very few have if they grow up south of the border. As a child under DACA, they have the chance to become a citizen of the United States as long as they complete their education.

The rescinding of this order will affect a group of about 800,000 high-achieving, hard-working, young members of our community. If they bought property or had some type of success during their time in the states, taking DACA away would be unconstitutional. You would be sending people who have lived most of their lives in the United States back to a place they never knew. You would be taking them away from the home they made in the country. The law to rescind DACA would be unconstitutional because we all have a right to property under the U.S. constitution.

Not only will property be taken away, but because Trump put the lives of these “dreamers” into the hands of Congress, the safety of these lives are being infringed upon. In a similar vein, the happiness of these immigrants is also being infringed on. Because their world is being shaken by the rescinding of DACA, they live in fear of being deported. Their property, their liberty and life are all being taken away from them and it is unconstitutional.

 

Sources:

A Dream Deferred: Rescinding DACA Makes Us Less Secure

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/05/trump-dreamers-daca-work-permits-242323

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/daca-rescinded-immigrant-programme-170905192454024.html

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

Tagged as , , ,

by | · 8:22 pm

Wages vs Cost of Survival: It No Longer Works

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.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

by | · 7:54 pm

A Step Backwards for Women’s Rights

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc is a nonprofit organization that provides various reproductive health services, sexual education, and advocates for the protection and expansion of reproductive rights. They are the largest provider of reproductive health services, including and famously known for abortions. It is specifically that reason that President Donald Trump has constantly pushed for their defunding.

The organization has received government funding since the 1970’s; in late 2016, the Obama administration issued a rule banning US states from withholding federal family-planning funds from health clinics that gave abortions. It was this rule that empowered all women to affordable access to their health services that they require. In some areas in particular, Planned Parenthood is the only viable option that women have. However, President Trump privately signed a new legislation that overturns this ruling in early April.

The ruling on this legislation affects thousands of women across the country, making this a public issue. It infringes on their quality of life by restricting their access to necessary healthcare services. Abortion aside, these clinics offer sexual education, contraceptives, pregnancy testing and consulting, cervical cancer screenings, and many more important features of healthcare that women should have readily available to her. Every person has a right to his or her own body, and this legislation takes away this freedom. These women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their body and how it is treated.

This is a step backwards for women’s rights in the United States, a country that prides itself in being progressive and an advocate for freedom. We are supposed to have a government built for the people and by the people. However, President Trump secretly signed the legislation into action. After talking candidly about supporting women and health related services, he was quick to sign a ruling that completely restricts access to all of these things just because the clinics also offer abortion services.

These services, including abortion, does not infringe upon other people’s rights. These matters are a private issue, and yet our government has made it a very public debate. People always have different stances on these social issues, but nobody gets hurt if we offer those in need these opportunities.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/donald-trump-planned-parenthood-money/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/planned-parenthood-trump.html?mcubz=0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke, Uncategorized