Property is a touchy matter. Locke thought that land could be claimed by merely utilising it for production of goods.
Now, what this means for his version of the social contract theory is that property is a vital component of it, which propels man to reach out from the 'State of Nature' to a form of government.
Locke's view dangerously collide with the ideals of elitisim and further on to a deeper degree with colonialism. In contemporary terms, this view almost invites the making of an expansionist foreign policy by the modern state.
Locke reasons that men venture out of the so called 'State of Nature' to seek protection for their properties. Clearly guided by self-interest, purporting the ideals of concentrating power, can this version of social contract theory really be a viable basis of government?
If I were to magically start cultivating the barren Gobi desert, would it give me the right to claim dominion over that land?
The basis of Locke's social contract theory would otherwise seem to be acceptable, but this fundamental problem of potentially negating the rights of an indigenous people does not bode well with my moral compass.
The mineral rich Baluchistan province remains under-utilised to this day. The fact that Chinese companies have started taking over projects to mine certain minerals would go hand in hand with my attempt at reasoning. Does this mean that land belongs to the Chinese?
This point alone has led me to be vary of Locke's views on the social contract theory, even though it would appear to be more logically appealing than Hobbes' somewhat myopic understanding of human morality, which in turn forms the basis for his social contract theory.
2 comments:
When one read of how Locke's says that you could claim a land by utilizing it for certain purposes this does reveal an insight of how in the past the state heads went into wars and claimed the land of the native tribes as to be their own.In today world we do see such kind of show by the powerful actors. In Baluchistan before Gwadar port project kicked off the military asked for the paper work claiming ownership from the indigenous people whom grand fathers owned the land from a century. Unable to produce the documentation they were deprived of the land and it was sold to the business elite of the country for very cheap prices. So i do agree with your point that property rights is a sensitive issue but giving the ownership of the land merely by utilising it is not moral enough for anybody.
Property rights are a huge deal and how they are treated by Locke in his vision of a social contract is important. Locke believed in "life, liberty, and property" as the three fundamental elements to a social contract. Abdullah your discussion on how property is treated in practice does raise questions about the viability of a Lockean social contract, at least in Pakistan.
Post a Comment