So, here, WIderquist and McCall discuss the lockean proviso and Locke's property rights theory in more detail. I'm going to be honest, despite its massive influence, I've never been a fan of Locke's theory. Anything that relies on "natural rights" is in the same category as "divine command theory" for me as far as arbitrariness goes, and yeah, this is arbitrary. I dont believe natural rights exist. Rights are social conventions, and while I would argue morality does exist in some form outside of the state, it is more utilitarian in nature. Things that harm humans are categorically bad, things that benefit them are categorically good. Murdering someone in a state of nature does not mean that the forceful taking of one's life did not happen, and because things are "permitted" doesn't make them helpful to human thriving. Giving someone in the state of nature a meal is also helpful for their well being, so it's good whether the state exists or not. So while I would say morality exists outside of states and social contracts, states are how we accomplish such goals realistically, and make it legally binding.
But just saying rights like property are natural is....nonsense. Locke's idea of the world before people is like minecraft. Large, pristine wilderness to be taken control of and made more productive for personal use. But in reality, life before states was more complicated. Existing states are largely borne out of violent conquest, and colonialization. Widerquist is correct to point out the colonial biases of Locke's theory. I mean it does just ignore that whole history.
And of course, the idea that the worst in English society were better off than the richest native AMerican is suspect. NOW, to be fair, I do have some sympathy for the economic growth argument. A huge reason I support capitalism, private property rights to some extent, IS because it has made our world far more productive and abundent. And on paper at least, in raw economic terms, you could argue people today are better off than they would be in the past, or in hunter gatherer societies. BUT, I would argue they are not uniformly so. I mean, for as wealthy as our society is ($76k GDP per capita), the gains of our society are wildly unequally distributed. We still have a poverty problem. Think about it, we have the richest society to ever exist, a society that could very easily crush poverty, and we won't do it. Why? Actually a huge reason is belief in locke's theory. It's MY property, I EARNED it. Screw you, i got mine. Go get your own. So we have a society that insists everyone must continue to work and struggle to survive, despite massive abundence.
And let's be honest, IM not sure the lockean proviso was even satisfied in locke's time. I mean, a lot of people from English society tried to escape the ENglish way of life and defect to the other side. Why? Probably because it provided more freedom than the rigid demands of the English way of life. Especially since those at the bottom were akin to slaves. In a lot of ways, modern society is not very different. People still struggle just to afford basic needs despite insane abundence, something is wrong here.
Our society is backwards. Even today. We are stuck in this ever present war for survival, despite the core argument being that all of these property rights create all of this prosperity. And yes, they do cause prosperity, but also great equality. And for some reason, instead of being willing just to redistribute some wealth to all, we insist on BS "equality of opportunity" while fetishizing work and pushing the problem elsewhere. Screw you, I got mine.
Honestly, where there is room in my framework for prosperity arguments like locke provides, it's a double edged sword for me. Again, yes, it makes massive wealth, but it doesn't DISTRIBUTE that wealth. And given my own idea that states shouldnt just justify themselves against the state of nature, but also each other, as well as hypothetical moralities that can arguably be accomplished realistically, I would argue that if something is good, and if we can accomplish it, we should consider doing it. THat's not to say we cant weigh the pros and cons of redistribution. But people put the idea of taking a rich person's wealth and simply redistributing it to everyone else as patently unjust. I think we should rethink that.
SO yeah, I guess my problem with locke really does come down to me disagreeing with his property rights system. I dont believe property is a natural right. I think that's a nonsense, lazy attempt at creating an "objective morality" akin to divine command theory, and that it is baseless.
I believe property is a social convention intended to achieve human ends. And while property does do good things in terms of the creation of wealth, it also creates issues with the distribution of it. And I do think that if we truly want society to fulfill this "lockean proviso", yeah, we should, once again, consider ideas like UBI to try to solve these problems. UBI is just compensation for a flawed property rights system in my opinion Property is defensible, but it should ideally accompany something like a UBI. Otherwise you just get poverty and wage slavery in a world of plenty.
No comments:
Post a Comment