John Locke and Land Ownership Essay

John Locke in The Second Treatise of Civil Government makes several mainstay arguments about what makes primer ownable, these ideologies differ from how pour down self-command figure outs in America that it is easy to see how Americas early old age could have aligned with this ideology. In this paper I leave behind focus on two key principles that Locke believed in that are basic requirements for land self-command.The first of these is that land ownership is obtained done tote and that items on the land have no cherish until labor is applied and the second describes governings berth in land ownership as simply being that the labor applied to land precedes government and government chamberpotnot dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily and instead should be limited to securing the life and plaza of its citizens, and is barely requirement because in an ideal, anarchic state of nature, various problems arise that would make life much insecure than down th e stairs the protection of a minimal state.These two principles onlyow for the easy identification of claimed lands. While at the same(p) time provide the motivation and encouragement to privates so that they will want to find land that they tail assembly then harness through labor and thus make their own land. It is because of these reasons and more that land ownership through labor is a must for a successful society and a functioning government. In order to ensure that these principles are being viewed and judge from the same virtuoso of meaning a a few(prenominal) key words learn to be defined as used in this paper.The term 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 only be used in reference to labor upon an individuals land and will reference, clement time and effort put in to a particular task. The term government will r eference only the actual ruling body that influences daily life based on policies and procedures they consecrate. At the last term reward will refer to, an item or ex transfer of labor promised or normally expected given in exchange for labor or with no lookout of both kind of return.The principle that labor is a prerequisite to land ownership fits in utterly with the needs and situation of the early American acres. Outside of key city areas a majority of this nations land was unclaimed and sweet bearing none of the payoffs of labor and essentially leaving all of its determine unclaimed and untouched. With a bounty of land larger than anyone person could actually sue and pass on 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 whole.The second principle helps to place limits on what the g overnment can do once a parcel of land is owned by an individual. It is safe to say that any reasonable person would not like to see their possessions and livelihood 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 ramp someone 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 mandatory to ensure this doesnt happen. Without this assurance from governmental takeover acts similar to his could become standard practice. An unjust government might routinely perform these actions, unjustly claiming the land. This would result in a diminishment of the value of labor and would pack the incentives to work land and would result in a decrease in goods.Because of this looming threat it is clear that government must have some rest rictions 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 clear of trust and security provided by having a reliable, continual and trustworthy shelter is bound to fail since this is a basic need of worlds in general. Modern science can help prove the strain and additional force expenditure humans endure if they cant find a sense of comfort, safety and belonging a study performed by Dr.Gilman while at Princeton University showed, humans that are in constant fear of loss of shelter expend an average of 2900 calories daily (Gilman 03/01/2012), along with this extra nil expenditure a lack of shelter creates stress that in turn creates a reduction in productivity. This stress can actually change the human brain reaction method resulting in it , expiration from more sophisticated but s overthrow modes to the faster behaviors of the older brains when we are under stres s (Gilman 03/01/2012).This change in brain behavior limits creative thinking and essentially devolves human thought 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 well 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 individuals the sparedom 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 desire to perform work th at can be beneficial to all. A study from Yale University performed by Dr.Greene helps to illustrate just how deeply root this concept is into human psychology, an individual will work perform work equivalent to their valuation 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 concluded 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 productive 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 taken from them it is essentially making them perform labor on their land without a reward resul ting in less work being performed and less goods for all of mankind, the only answer 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 better 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 please the fruits of their labor helping to create the best future possible. Works Cited Gilman, Robert. Context Institute, The Inside Story collar the structure of the brain. Last modified 03/01/2012. Accessed September 22, 2012. Mark, Lepper, and Greene David. Lawrence Erlbaum, The Hidden costs of reward new perspectives of the psychology of human motivation. Last modified 1978. Accessed September 22, 2012.