Locke -- Unequal Wealth Essays - Philosophy, John Locke,

Locke -- Unequal Wealth Tuesday, September 26, 2000 protesters marched in the streets of Prague as the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund held global finance meetings. Many protesters stated the statistics that more than 3 billion people live on less than 2 dolla a day. They claim that unequal divisions of wealth are not legitimate, and should be changed. James D. Wolfenshon president of the World Bank stated, ?something is wrong when the richest twenty percent of the global population receive more than eight percent of the global income? (New York Times Sep. 27, 2000). According to Locke there is nothing wrong with those statistics. It is legatee for people to amass great wealth, only to the point that what they have, they do not destroy or let spoil. To understand Locke's claims of unequal divisions of wealth, one must first understand his claim of labor and how it interacts with land, specifically property. An apple is picked from a tree, it is eaten, and digested. When did that apple become personal property. When it was picked, or when it was bitten, or when it mixed into the body and digested. Locke claims that the apple became property of that person when it was picked. The person invested labor into the harvesting of that fru , and thus made it his. His reasoning for this was that man's labor removes things from a state of nature. The apple is no longer part of a growing tree, it has now become nourishment. When an apple is removed from the state of nature it becomes prop ty. When a rabbit is removed from its state of nature it also becomes property. When land is removed from the state of nature it too becomes property. Enclosing a parcel of land, of which one improves by pasturage, tillage, or planting ,does not harm or bruise the welfare of the common. Instead benefits mankind by increasing the amount of land available to others. That same plot of land left untouched, would not nor could not produce the same harvest. If land was left in its natural state, it might require ten plots of land to provide the nourishment and other necessities of life for one person. When labor is a ed to land it becomes personal property. This property that now produces more bounty leaves nine other plots of land for others. In short, if the world consisted of ten people, those ten would require one-hundred plots of land if none could claim thei property. By claiming property, so that there was still enough, and as good left for everyone, those ten would only need ten plots of land, thus leaving ninety plots in common. Locke claims, ?that labor makes the far greatest part of value? which is true. Land in general, is basically the same from one acre to another. If equal amounts of labor are invested into the land, the amount of return is generally the same. If disproportionate amounts of labor are invested into a piece of land the returns will be disproportionate. To understand Locke's claim that it is legitimate for people to have unequal divisions of wealth, one must understand the perimeters that bind that legitimacy. First, a person can only take enough, from the earth that which they will use (Locke 21). This is to say that mankind can not waste what they take from nature. For example; if one gathered fifty apple, and only ate twenty-five, the other twenty-five would rot and go to waste. By wasting twenty five apples that person would be detrime al to the common wealth of the people. Secondly one can only take of the earth so that there is still some reaming that is as good for others(Locke 21). It is legitimate for people to take what they need, as long as they do not destroy any, or let it go to waste. What ever surpasses this, is more than his portion, and belongs to the others. Locke states, ?Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy?(Locke 21). Trading however, is expectable; if one traded the twenty-five apples before they went to waste for nuts, which last much longer. That person would not be in any way damaging or taking from that which