I'm reading John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government."But I'm a little confused...

[Paranormal Inquirer]

I'm enjoying this volume so far but I'm kind of confused when he speaks about Property in depth in Chapter V. How exactly does nature limit each of us to an equitable share of property, if that is what he is trying to get at? And how exactly does the advent of money affect those natural limits? I mean, why would John Locke support the invention of money despite the fact that it destabilizes the equitable balance that nature establishes for individuals' acquisition of property?

[Paranormal Inquirer]

bump

[drkitten]

I'm enjoying this volume so far but I'm kind of confused when he speaks about Property in depth in Chapter V. How exactly does nature limit each of us to an equitable share of property, if that is what he is trying to get at? And how exactly does the advent of money affect those natural limits? I mean, why would John Locke support the invention of money despite the fact that it destabilizes the equitable balance that nature establishes for individuals' acquisition of property?

Absent money, you can't really own or control more goods than you can actually use.

There's a Japanese proverb that's relevant here "One mat sleeping, half a mat sitting, rule the world, a bowl of rice." Basically, no matter how powerful you are, you still only take up a single mat when you sleep, a half a mat when you sit, and you can only eat a single bowl of rice.

From Locke, sec 31 : "As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in." If you try to gather, cook, and eat more than that single bowl of rice, you'll just end up throwing it away. So in what sense was it your property?