“There cannot be a clearer demonstration of anything than several nations of the Americans are of this, who are rich in land and poor in all the comforts of life; whom Nature, having furnished as liberally as any other people with the materials of plenty—i.e., a fruitful soil, apt to produce in abundance what might serve for food, raiment, and delight; yet, for want of improving it by labor, have not one hundredth part of the conveniences we enjoy, and a king of a large and fruitful territory there feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day laborer in England. “
Why would a king or a nomad worse compare to a laborer in England? Under the premises that there are lots of unused resources in America, the labor of people serves the purpose of improving common resources, which is better than pure enjoyment as those who produce no products and value.
Why would a king or a nomad worse compare to a laborer in England? Under the premises that there are lots of unused resources in America, the labor of people serves the purpose of improving common resources, which is better than pure enjoyment as those who produce no products and value.
It is easy to draw the conclusion that Locke agrees that human should use as much as labor they can to labor common resources in order to generate greater value to natural resources, which is the command of God to cultivate and make use of His natural resources.
It is easy to draw the conclusion that Locke agrees that human should use as much as labor they can to labor common resources in order to generate greater value to natural resources, which is the command of God to cultivate and make use of His natural resources.
Moreover, this paragraph provides the necessity of introducing of money. As it’s reasonable to labor as much as one could, it would lead to an inevitable result that there would be products left over from the overwhelming amount of laboring. Yet reasonable human should not possess more than one can consume, or else perishable resources would be wasted as time went by. Thus, it’s reasonable to introduce money as a mean to convey value, which is unperishable and allows one to create as much value as one can without wasting natural resources.
Moreover, this paragraph provides the necessity of introducing of money. As it’s reasonable to labor as much as one could, it would lead to an inevitable result that there would be products left over from the overwhelming amount of laboring. Yet reasonable human should not possess more than one can consume, or else perishable resources would be wasted as time went by. Thus, it’s reasonable to introduce money as a mean to convey value, which is unperishable and allows one to create as much value as one can without wasting natural resources.
Yet common consent to the use of money would eventually induces the disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, which is potentially a moral dilemma that deviates people from the common good. Because one, who has absolute power to decide his own property without harming others’ rights according to the natural law, doesn’t necessarily needs to give up his or her own property for the good of others. There’s only ourselves’ good without violating others ’good. I would say it’s a tragic world God created that we can’t tend the garden of others. We are ripped of the chance to contribute to the common good of every human in the cost of ourselves, which is considered unreasonable in this context. As time evolve, the rich would be richer, while the poor survive as much as they can. Though the mean of producing value for each one in this world is equal, no one is ever born equal.
Yet common consent to the use of money would eventually induces the disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, which is potentially a moral dilemma that deviates people from the common good. Because one, who has absolute power to decide his own property without harming others’ rights according to the natural law, doesn’t necessarily needs to give up his or her own property for the good of others. There’s only ourselves’ good without violating others ’good. I would say it’s a tragic world God created that we can’t tend the garden of others. We are ripped of the chance to contribute to the common good of every human in the cost of ourselves, which is considered unreasonable in this context. As time evolve, the rich would be richer, while the poor survive as much as they can. Though the mean of producing value for each one in this world is equal, no one is ever born equal.
Leave a Reply