John Locke Property Development
That everyone of us is more often than not fierce in the dominion and defense of ones property ought to emphasize how central a concept property and its various aspects must be in the patterning of civilized life under collectively accepted and politically enforceable laws. To quote from Second Treatise on Civil Government (Locke, 1689), Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself. Hence, it follows that one owns ones own life, and thereby, the products of ones life, and one may trade these in free exchange with others. Moreover, Locke viewed property to be so important that, The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.
Indeed, so precious did Locke view property that he justified even murder for its defense a value that modern law has institutionalized worldwide. Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it. (Chapter 7 Section 87).
Oliver Wendell Holmes had in The Common Law described property (Holmes, 1885) as containing two intrinsic aspects, viz. possession, and title. The aspect of possession signifies control over the resource, and renders it practically difficult for others to oppose the aims of the owner. The trait of title implies the expectation that even when not being exercised, others will recognize the right of the possessor to control the thing. In more recent times, Atlas Shrugged informs us (Rand, 1957) that Just as man cant exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate ones rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means the right of property.
Section 34 of Second Treatise on Civil Government includes Lockes reflections on land, which are quite interesting and significant, and may be viewed as pertinent in todays times of rapid development of real estate. I can merely add my own musings on how insightful Lockes writings had been, and how property development in modern industrialized nations might appear through Lockes lens.
To quote Locke, God gave the world to men in common but since he gave it them for their benefit, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. So, Locke advocates a condition away from the pristine, barren, and public state of land as it existed when God had given it to Adam, as per biblical accounts. Locke appears to be obviously for the land being rendered of more use and benefit to people. Locke regards the very institution of property to have evolved from the investment of a persons labor upon land, or other common resources, with such labor getting to be accepted as conferring a right of that laborer to either the fruits of his labor, and perhaps by extension, to the common resources on which he had expended his efforts. As he observes, Thus, this law of reason makes the deer that Indians who hath killed it it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labor upon it, though before it was the common right of every one. (Section 30).
Locke believed that God intended land to be used by industrious and rational, and not for the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. This section of Lockes treatise on property lends itself to varied interpretations. The some might perceive in it a gentle admonition of the rapid pace of urbanization, the virtual defilement of vast stretches of natural scenery, and the unbridled mushrooming of real estate ventures for commercial purposes. They might regard their cause to be mere fancy or covetousness. However, I would tend to disagree with this conclusion being derived from Lockes words. Indeed, it would not be logical to fondly apply his words in the present context of property development. Locke does insist on the common and uncultivated land getting converted into fertile regions, and variously owned by others. I would be inclined to read in this section Lockes tacit support for any investment of labor by one that renders the public area as of greater convenience to others. This enterprise ought to include the efforts by the modern real estate developers to make available affordable housing to people who wish to relocate there. It would be simplistic to sympathize with the underprivileged, and be apologetic about large-scale colonizing plans. The issue is primarily of the market economy, of the respective demand and supply of such variables as capital, idea, labor, and finally, the resultant profits. It serves little purpose being judgmental over urban progress, and assuming that old represents gold.
As Locke affirms in Section 26, God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience for the support and comfort of their being. So, who is to say that a residential colony being constructed by a real estate company is bad To the umpteen buyers who move in, property development must come as a boon. My submission is that in the modern market-determined economy, there are natural checks and balances that effectively guard against anyones wanton fancy or covetousness. If a property scheme sells, it means there are buyers for it, and that proves that it has benefited them. The market economy not only enables, but also compels, fair exchange for value. An outright capitalistic, monopolistic, venture that infringed upon the rights of any other section of society would be just unable to take off, or be challenged in the consumer courts for its unethical and unfair provisions.
I should, therefore, maintain that Locke has not explicitly committed himself to be opposed to property development, so it might not be a grand idea to read this stance in his writings. I choose to believe Lockes sanction to exist for all honest efforts invested to render land of more advantage to others. we see how labor could make men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private uses wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for quarrel. (Section 39). Why should there be any doubt or dispute over property development, which entails substantial investment of thought, money and industry by the real estate developers, and which does definitely promote the comfort and convenience of several other buyers Locke does extol land being used to the best advantage of life, and convenience (Section 2).
If Lockes statements seem to indicate anything subtly, I can definitely discern palpable affirmation for the biblical precept of For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, and pierced themselves with many sorrows. (Timothy 610). I can gradually trace the progression of this dim realization in Lockes writings. It begins with an understanding of the raison detre of the institution of property, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. (Section 26). The unease grows in had agreed, that a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, should be worth a great piece of flesh, (Section 37). The lament is unmistakable in Right and convenience went together for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labor upon, so he had no temptation to labor for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed. (Section 51).
Indeed, so precious did Locke view property that he justified even murder for its defense a value that modern law has institutionalized worldwide. Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it. (Chapter 7 Section 87).
Oliver Wendell Holmes had in The Common Law described property (Holmes, 1885) as containing two intrinsic aspects, viz. possession, and title. The aspect of possession signifies control over the resource, and renders it practically difficult for others to oppose the aims of the owner. The trait of title implies the expectation that even when not being exercised, others will recognize the right of the possessor to control the thing. In more recent times, Atlas Shrugged informs us (Rand, 1957) that Just as man cant exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate ones rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means the right of property.
Section 34 of Second Treatise on Civil Government includes Lockes reflections on land, which are quite interesting and significant, and may be viewed as pertinent in todays times of rapid development of real estate. I can merely add my own musings on how insightful Lockes writings had been, and how property development in modern industrialized nations might appear through Lockes lens.
To quote Locke, God gave the world to men in common but since he gave it them for their benefit, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. So, Locke advocates a condition away from the pristine, barren, and public state of land as it existed when God had given it to Adam, as per biblical accounts. Locke appears to be obviously for the land being rendered of more use and benefit to people. Locke regards the very institution of property to have evolved from the investment of a persons labor upon land, or other common resources, with such labor getting to be accepted as conferring a right of that laborer to either the fruits of his labor, and perhaps by extension, to the common resources on which he had expended his efforts. As he observes, Thus, this law of reason makes the deer that Indians who hath killed it it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labor upon it, though before it was the common right of every one. (Section 30).
Locke believed that God intended land to be used by industrious and rational, and not for the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. This section of Lockes treatise on property lends itself to varied interpretations. The some might perceive in it a gentle admonition of the rapid pace of urbanization, the virtual defilement of vast stretches of natural scenery, and the unbridled mushrooming of real estate ventures for commercial purposes. They might regard their cause to be mere fancy or covetousness. However, I would tend to disagree with this conclusion being derived from Lockes words. Indeed, it would not be logical to fondly apply his words in the present context of property development. Locke does insist on the common and uncultivated land getting converted into fertile regions, and variously owned by others. I would be inclined to read in this section Lockes tacit support for any investment of labor by one that renders the public area as of greater convenience to others. This enterprise ought to include the efforts by the modern real estate developers to make available affordable housing to people who wish to relocate there. It would be simplistic to sympathize with the underprivileged, and be apologetic about large-scale colonizing plans. The issue is primarily of the market economy, of the respective demand and supply of such variables as capital, idea, labor, and finally, the resultant profits. It serves little purpose being judgmental over urban progress, and assuming that old represents gold.
As Locke affirms in Section 26, God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience for the support and comfort of their being. So, who is to say that a residential colony being constructed by a real estate company is bad To the umpteen buyers who move in, property development must come as a boon. My submission is that in the modern market-determined economy, there are natural checks and balances that effectively guard against anyones wanton fancy or covetousness. If a property scheme sells, it means there are buyers for it, and that proves that it has benefited them. The market economy not only enables, but also compels, fair exchange for value. An outright capitalistic, monopolistic, venture that infringed upon the rights of any other section of society would be just unable to take off, or be challenged in the consumer courts for its unethical and unfair provisions.
I should, therefore, maintain that Locke has not explicitly committed himself to be opposed to property development, so it might not be a grand idea to read this stance in his writings. I choose to believe Lockes sanction to exist for all honest efforts invested to render land of more advantage to others. we see how labor could make men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private uses wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for quarrel. (Section 39). Why should there be any doubt or dispute over property development, which entails substantial investment of thought, money and industry by the real estate developers, and which does definitely promote the comfort and convenience of several other buyers Locke does extol land being used to the best advantage of life, and convenience (Section 2).
If Lockes statements seem to indicate anything subtly, I can definitely discern palpable affirmation for the biblical precept of For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, and pierced themselves with many sorrows. (Timothy 610). I can gradually trace the progression of this dim realization in Lockes writings. It begins with an understanding of the raison detre of the institution of property, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. (Section 26). The unease grows in had agreed, that a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, should be worth a great piece of flesh, (Section 37). The lament is unmistakable in Right and convenience went together for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labor upon, so he had no temptation to labor for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed. (Section 51).
Categories:
1 comments:
This is fantastic. As someone who holds Locke in high regard and someone who is young in the real estate development field, this analysis is invaluable. Thank you for posting.
Post a Comment