Question

compare and contrast Locke’s and (either one of) Aristotle's or Marx’s views on the benefits and harms of wealth inequality on the social and political order.

Answer 1

John Locke stated that in the state of nature no man can get more than he can consume.

According to Locke idea of fair unequal distribution of wealth came about with the creation of money. Before money, things could not be saved fairly. Over stocking by some would lead to spoilage, and leave others with nothing. Once money was introduced though, this allowed the accumulation of wealth, without wasting it. Locke aimed to justify was the pre-industrial form of property in its personal Form. His theory transcended his own time and formed the theoretical basis of a new form of property that gained social character with the changing Mode of production. Locke begins with a justification of property right based on one's own labour; however ends up as an apologist of capitalism legitimizing the unlimited accumulation of capital. His labour theory of value plays a crucial role in his chain of arguments. According to Locke, state of nature is the state of perfect freedom, in which men order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of The law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. The law of nature or of reason is that all men are equal and independent. Therefore, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. Since all men are equal, all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another. according to Locke, by picking an apple from tree or cultivating a virgin piece of land a man does not only become the owner of the apple or the agricultural product, but he also appropriates the tree he picked the apple from or the land he cultivated.

Contrary to this Manx employs the labour theory of value to argue for the abolition of private property, which he perceives as a source of alienation and a major obstacle for the attainment of individual freedom. Marx argues that political freedoms as articulated in the 1789 French doctrine of the Rights of Man are paradoxical in a number of ways, which are interrelated with each other. Marx asserts that all rights do not possess equal importance rather there is a hierarchy among them and the right of property is a foundational limitation on all other rights. According to Marx, individual Will view fellow man as an enemy standing in his way of the acquirement or preservation of property. In order to retain the right of property, one must possess property. Otherwise, the right becomes hollow and fictitious. This also means that each individual must accept materialistic goals as his personal goals to secure his personal property and other rights. If a man gives higher priority to other goals, he will be vulnerable to any attack on his property or his personal rights. Marx asserts that all other rights must be understood as subservient to the property right. if the laws exist to protect property rights then there can be no equality before the laws without property. Hence, the property less worker who does not even possess his own labour does not possess this right.