Term Paper: Jean Jacques Rousseau vs. John Locke
Economic inequality is a menace that has been witnessed in the developing and the developed nations since ancient times. Legislation regarding the ownership of property has drawn heated criticism from various scholars and human rights activists. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are among the activists who have expressed strong ideas concerning the issue of ownership of private property. John in the Second Treaties of Government takes a soft stance. He defends the natural right of acquiring private property despite the economic inequalities that the move bears to the people of the nation. John’s stance on the matter has widely been embraced by many capitalist governments across the globe with its proponents claiming that the government should exercise limited authority in redistribution of wealth. On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau takes a contradictory stand on the issue of ownership of private property. He condemns the move in the strongest terms possible as one that furthers dependence, dehumanization, subservience and ill-timed restrictions in the history of humanity. The paper establishes the reasons for drawing such extreme conclusions concerning the ownership of private property. The paper critically evaluates the arguments of the scholars by amassing support from other secondary sources.
The premise on which Locke’s thoughts are grounded will be analyzed critically and supported by other texts. In defending the natural right of acquiring property, he poses the question of how to come about with the individual property. Naturally, the bible considers the earth the property of man and recommends the common use for all humanity. His question emanates from the claim of the common ownership that is advocated for in the Bible. Logically, the natural design the earth was meant to sustain the survival of man and provide mutual benefit to him. The population of man necessitated the idea of gathering wealth more than one can manage to utilize. The increased levels of uncertainty that engulfs the world has caused man to be so aggressive and corrupt in his dealings (Grave and Yolton, 2006). The idea of individual ownership of property in a free manner is quite positive. The right must be exercised with caution so as to avoid infringing and depriving other innocent individuals of their right of ownership. Otherwise, the idea of individuals’ ownership that Locke questions its origin is agreeable.
Locke argues that for the property of an individual to exist, there must be a means to appropriate the objects that are around the environment. He starts off by recognizing the body of a man as an individual’s property. The labor that the body of an individual performs is also deemed to be his rightful property. According to him, the property becomes individually owned if the labor of a person is added to the object. An example of an apple is given. When one bends down to pick an apple, the apple acquires new ownership of the individual who applied the effort of picking it. John’s thought from a neutral point of view does not demand the consent of any human being to acquire property. Each has a license to own property based on his own initiative. Locke’s argument is irrational and is driven by greed. Well, it could be agreeable to say that everyone has some effort to apply in the acquisition of property. In a broader sense, it is meaningless to acquire too much property that one cannot utilize. Locke’s thought is misplaced because it can encourage the oppression of the weak individuals. With the application of the principle, the folks in the lower class can end up owning nothing on earth, and the cycle of poverty will continue to exist.
It is appreciable that Locke considers to postulate an idea to safeguard on the limits of acquisition of property. He places bounds on the type of acquisition that is exercised by people. He advocates for the acquisition of property to the limits that an individual can effectively put into use without wasting any. The example of an apple still applies. One overextends his natural rights of acquisition of apples if he acquires too much that he cannot use. He extends the law to the ownership of land. Locke also considers labor to be the determining factor of value on earth. According to him, labor is used by man to make the world a more rewarding and advantageous place to inhabit.
Locke’s premise on property ownership and use is simple. The natural rights are applicable for all sorts of items and property including land. The natural right is bounded by the law of subsistence that argues for the acquisition of property that is proportional to the level of usage. Locke’s premise, however has a loophole because money when combined with labor can give massive expansion past the subsistence level of possessions. The argument has a limitation in this perspective. Money is not considered when driving the point of natural acquisition home. He narrowly considers labor as the only gateway to the acquisition of property, yet money subsumes labor and the rule of subsistence (Resnick, 2005). Money transcends the rule of labor and the rule of subsistence. For instance, a wealthy person owning a large track of land can pay people to till it. The proceeds that come out of the land belong to the proprietor of the land who did not put any effort in tilling the land. The proceeds, though are too much for the usage of the owner of the land, he can decide to sell them, and the money remains his. Since the use of money is accepted universally, the wealthy person breaks no natural law of acquiring property. The loophole in theory can provide a chance for the exploitation of the rich politicians and the pro-capitalists in the civilized society (Gorham, 2011). With the introduction of money in the natural acquisition of resources, the gap between the poor and the rich folks is bound to enlarge. The wealthy will not use their effort in acquiring property, but will use their money to do so. The provision for the protection of the individual property that is advocated for by the politicians will also serve to further this stance. After amassing wealth in large scale, wealthy individuals enter the society to protect the issue of unlimited rights to own property. Perhaps, this is the reason why any leadership that opposes the move to protect the mass individual property, risks being overthrown.
Rousseau's argument in Discourse on Inequality and Analysis
Rousseau's work in Discourse on Inequality is among the most powerful critiques of the civilization of man. It traces the political and psychological impact of modernity on the nature of humankind. He demonstrates that the evolution of man and the witnessed economic inequality among men is closely related (Rousseau and Cranston, 2005). Heavy criticism of the flawed political institutions is blamed for causing such economic gaps in the history of mankind. In this pieces of work, thoughts have been drawn in the process of diagnosing the glitches with the current political institutions. Rousseau later tried to resolve the problems in his work, Social Contract.
Rousseau questions whether the inequality that is witnessed among humanities is authorized by the natural law. Rousseau’s argument is very passionate and powerful. The writing that is dazzling in nature is commendable. The scope of writing is also broad enough to facilitate the capturing of the ideas of inequality in a conclusive manner. The methodology used by Rousseau is daring and brilliant. Rousseau traces man in a natural state while discarding the authority of the religious literature. The Discourse postulated is a very daring deduction. The postulation aims to advocate for the exercise of reconstruction and conjecture. Though the discourse is related to the debates of the eighteenth-century about man’s nature, and about diverse forms of regime, it also bears a wider importance. The problems of inequality that was associated with the ancient time is still witnessed in the contemporary society. The article remains relevant in addressing the issues with the flawed political processes.
The piece of literature focuses on the needs of man. It is vital because the author asks questions concerning what we want and who we are. Such questions still apply today. The central idea that current people exist in an ever-increasing system of necessities. The system of needs is influenced by the thoughts of other people in the modern society. Traces of it are found in Hegel's idea of a civilized society, and in Weber's account of the alienated worker (Prego-Vazquez, 2007). More vitally, it is apparent in our lives. The impression that modern life is unequal, and imperfect was devised by Rousseau, but he displays a mesmerizing argument for how economic inequality manifested itself in the contemporary society.
Rousseau fundamental principles that guide his thoughts on natural man are the compassion exercised towards the suffering of other individuals and the non-destructive love of the individual self. He encourages self-love and pity and a collective approach towards preserving the humankind throughout history. The mindset of Rousseau on the natural man is in opposition to the stance taken Locke in his theory of property ownership. While Rousseau embraces self-pity and love in actions of man, Locke supports the use of effort or labor in making fortune in the society. Embracing of love and pity is acceptable as supported by the believers in religion (Elgin et al., 2013).
However, Rousseau’s premise of the argument is based on the free willpower of man to choose to exercise the good attributes towards fellow humankind. The proclamation of free will that he terms as, “free agency,” is disadvantaged by the belief and notion that man is, “a creature that always act in line with invariable and specific principles,” (Rousseau and Cranston, 2005). The belief contradicts the basis of the Discourse itself. The actions of man that he takes over time can, therefore, be inferred over the course of his development. Therefore, the question of whether the mode of acquisition of property by man is natural has an obvious answer. The civilized society shapes the behavior of man in a defined manner and the question of choice in exercising compassion cannot hold.
Analysis of Rousseau’s Argument in the Social Contract
The notion that mankind is born free, but is in chains everywhere, depicts that Rousseau agrees that modernity represses the physical freedom of man. In this piece of work, he aims to provide a solution to the state of discourse that he pointed out earlier. According to him, the problems with inequality that characterizes the modern’s society can be solved through the inauguration a legitimate political authority (Rousseau and Frankel, 1947). The legitimate political authority emanates from a social contract that is agreed upon by all the individuals for their preservation. The laws put in place in a legitimate way must ensure the enforcement of laws that ensure that equality and liberty is exercised. The extent of equality that Rousseau advocates for is not very clear. Doubt can be cast on whether he wants the economic standing of the citizens of the country to be leveled through the aid of the laws. The position that can be insinuated by this could lead to the development of laxity in enforcing the labor market. After all, working lacks value if the government ensures that resources are abundant for the use of everyone in the society? The article, therefore, leaves the question of property ownership without addressing it comprehensively.
Conclusion
Economic inequality has been witnessed in the developing and the developed nations throughout the historic times. Heated debates have been launched based on how the menace can be tackled effectively. Locke offers a natural perspective of dealing with property that has been accused of causing massive disparity in the modern society. Rousseau attributes the mass inequality that is witnessed in the contemporary society to the flaws that exist in the political institutions. He advocates for the exercise of love, pity and empathy in dealing with the wants of fellow men in the society. Rousseau later provided a solution to the Discourse that a legitimate government that is formulated on the basis of social contracts should be established. The laws used to govern such institution should encourage equality and fairness among all citizens. All in all, proposing theories and explanations for certain natural and unnatural phenomena is quite simple. The plain truth that humankind has to live by is that the law of the jungle follows us into the civilized society. The fittest will thrive while the weakest species shall hang on to life.
References
Elgin, C., Goksel, T., Gurdal, M. Y., & Orman, C. (2013). Religion, income inequality, and the size of the government. Economic Modelling, 30(4), 225-234.
Gorham, G. (2011). John Locke & Natural Philosophy. Early Science and Medicine, 16(6), 626-628.
Grave, S. A., & Yolton, J. W. (2006). John Locke and the Way of Ideas.. The Philosophical Quarterly, 8(32), 282.
Prego-Vazquez, G. (2007). Frame Conflict And Social Inequality In The Workplace: Professional And Local Discourse Struggles In Employee/customer Interactions. Discourse & Society, 18(3), 295-335.
Resnick, D. (2005). John Locke and the Problem of Naturalization. The Review of Politics, 49(03), 368.
Rousseau, J., & Frankel, C. (1947). The social contract;. New York: Hafner Pub. Co..
Rousseau, J., & Cranston, M. (2005). A discourse on inequality. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
