Nagra - Blog Post 1

     In Chapter V, Locke expresses his concept of property. He does this first by introducing the idea that “it is the taking of any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in” that creates property (Par. 23). He further narrows his definition by adding that it is labor that bestows value on land (Par. 43). In addition to his idea on money, this definition lacks the necessary complexity to apply to intellectual property. 

Locke’s idea that he who removes the property from the common now owns it feels inadequate when extended to intellectual property. In the current public health crisis of COVID-19, many different companies have sought to create a vaccine or cure for the virus. Would Locke extend his concept of property ownership onto something like the chemical formulation for a vaccine? How much can we assign the idea of property to something intangible? To further his concept, it seems fitting to add that Locke’s notion of property appears to only apply to physical entities. 

    It was also curious to me how Locke seems to define consent. He states that money has worth through a “tacit agreement of men to put a value on it”(Par. 36). This statement is where his argument is flawed. There cannot be a tacit agreement if one has no other choice but to accept. An agreement needs to have an active choice between two options with an acceptance.  In connection to the above discussion on vaccines, it is impossible to say that one has consented to take a vaccine if the only other choice is something terrible. Coercion is not the same as expressed and active consent. 

    Locke forgets the intense need for a population or individual’s consent to a system for the system to work. By coercing everyone to agree to the system of money or any political system for that matter, one breeds an unhappy population into insurrection. For example, it is only natural for one to get angry if they have no choice but to receive a specific medical treatment regardless of any scenario we may apply to them. Even in the case of those who cannot consent, such as children or those who are mentally incapacitated, to say that they can consent when given no other choice is disingenuous.

Comments

Paul Hurley said…
You raise several issues here, including the original mixing argument, intellectual property, tacit consent wrt money, and a criticism of Locke for forgetting its importance (?) A couple of these are REALLY interesting, but underdeveloped. Is the point that Locke can't extend his account to intellectual property? How is it different such that this might be true? Such a cool topic, but it needs to be developed before it is clear whether there is a criticism here, or even a challenge.
January 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more