John Locke and Land Ownership Essay

nooky Locke in The Second Treatise of Civil Government shed light ons several key arguments intimately what makes farming ownable, these ideologies differ from how belt down ownership works in the States however it is easy to see how Americas first age could have aligned with this ideology. In this paper I go a itinerary pore on two key principles that Locke believed in that are prefatorial requirements for knowledge domain ownership.The first of these is that land ownership is obtained by dint of outwear and that items on the land have no take to be until chore is applied and the second describes presidencys role in land ownership as and if being that the aim applied to land precedes administration and regime can non gaol of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily and instead should be limited to securing the life and property of its citizens, and is altogether necessary beca workout in an ideal, anarchic state of nature, various problems arise that would m ake life more insecure than under the protection of a token(prenominal) state.These two principles whollyow for the easy identification of necessitateed lands. While at the same(p) time interpret the motivation and encouragement to individuals so that they will indispensableness to find land that they can then harness through roil and thus make their own land. It is because of these reasons and more that land ownership through jade is a must for a successful hostel and a functioning government. In order to ensure that these principles are being viewed and arbiter from the same smell out of meaning a few key words need to be defined as used in this paper.The terminus land ownership is vital to this paper and its meaning will be defined as, the owner of contiguous property that has been improved upon from nature to provide for ones living. The term labor will solely be used in speech to labor upon an individuals land and will reference, gentle time and effort put in to a particular task. The term government will reference further the actual ruling body that influences daily life found on policies and procedures they enact. At the last term come back will refer to, an item or exchange of labor promised or commonly expected given in exchange for labor or with no expectation of any kind of return.The principle that labor is a requirement to land ownership fits in perfectly with the postulate and situation of the early American terra firma. Outside of key city areas a majority of this nations land was unclaimed and unused bearing none of the fruits of labor and basically leaving all of its value unclaimed and untouched. With a insurance premium of land givingr than anyone person could actually work and apply labor to, it made sense to encourage land expansion. With land expansion individuals could claim land through labor and the value and goods on that land would no longer go to waste as unused items that could have benefitted society as a w hole.The second principle divine serviceers to place limits on what the government can do once a parcel of land is possess by an individual. It is safe to say that any reasonable person would not like to see their possessions and victuals wiped away with one fell swoop, but if governments have no restrictions in the use of their power it would be all too easy to force roughlyone from their land, effectively robbing them of all their possessions and the livelihood that past labor has brought them.This is why Locke insisted that the government role in land owner ship remain limited in scope only to the extent that is needed to ensure this doesnt happen. Without this assurance from governmental putsch acts similar to his could become standard practice. An unjust government might routinely serve these actions, unjustly claiming the land. This would result in a diminishment of the value of labor and would remove the incentives to work land and would result in a fall in goods.Becaus e of this looming threat it is clear that government must have some restrictions on acquiring land to avoid unjust actions and encourage a general sense of trust and security in the government. A government that is without citizens that have some sort of trust and security provided by having a reliable, continual and trustworthy shelter is bound to fail since this is a basic need of humans in general. Modern science can help prove the stress and surplus vital force expenditure humans digest if they cant find a sense of comfort, safety and be a sketch commited by Dr.Gilman while at Princeton University showed, humans that are in constant fear of loss of shelter expend an mediocre of 2900 calories daily (Gilman 03/01/2012), along with this extra energy expenditure a need of shelter creates stress that in turn creates a reduction in productivity. This stress can actually change the human brain reply method resulting in it , going from more sophisticated but slow modes to the f aster behaviors of the older brains when we are under stress (Gilman 03/01/2012).This change in brain behavior limits creative thinking and essentially devolves human fancy to a lower state this combined with the increased calories expenditure creates a vast pool of diminished talent that when viewed in a large scale population level, results in a huge waste of resources that could be easily reduced by the assurance of land ownership and security. The easiest way for a government to meet this need is to let individuals provide additional goods to society by applying labor to their land thereby reducing their energy requirements and providing goods for the benefit of all.With all the complications that are possible when it comes to providing for the needs of the many, it only makes to allow in individuals the freedom of land ownership that will help reduce their needs while simultaneously benefitting others. This notion of having some sort of fruit from your labor is fundamental to increasing ones value and having a go for to perform work that can be beneficial to all. A need from Yale University performed by Dr.Greene helps to illustrate just how deeply rooted this concept is into human psychology, an individual will work perform work equivalent to their evaluation of a reward. The study was meant to determine the amount of work an individual would perform without a reward versus the amount of work performed for a reward. The study cogitate that, any individual who was assigned a tasked performed that task to completion with more detail and more efficiently when rewarded as compared to no reward (Mark et al. 1978).This study helps to demonstrate that human psychology insists that any individual will perform more work and therefore be a more tillable member of society if only that individual receives something for the labor they put in. As mentioned earlier if an individual lives under constant threat of having everything hold upn from them it is essent ially making them perform labor on their land without a reward resulting in less work being performed and less goods for all of mankind, the only solution that removes this fear is placing limits on when and if a government can take someones land from them.With removal of this fear an individual can and likely will utilize labor to its fullest extend thereby adding value to the land. It is clear that the benefits of land ownership as defined through the use of labor allows for the creation of the best society possible, one that can help to provide for mankind as a whole, increase the value and abilities of its citizens that actively partake and utilizes the resources at hand to the best of its abilities without waste and undue stress.A society that is free of these constraints and provided with the best possible reward for work and sense of security can only flourish and enjoy the fruits of their labor component to create the best future possible. Works Cited Gilman, Robert. Contex t Institute, The Inside taradiddle Understanding the structure of the brain. Last modified 03/01/2012. Accessed family line 22, 2012. Mark, Lepper, and Greene David. Lawrence Erlbaum, The Hidden be of reward new perspectives of the psychology of human motivation. Last modified 1978. Accessed September 22, 2012.