Questions and Answers Reflective Essay

Reflective Essay

On page 191 of “Labor as the Basis of Property,” John Locke claims that there are a couple of restrictions on our right to own anything we have worked to obtain. What are these restrictions?

Even though John Locke argued that people have the right to own and enjoy their property, he also claimed that it comes with some restrictions. The first limit is geared towards the creation of property when he claimed, “Labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough and as good left in common for others” (SMITH, 2015). This implies that everyone has a right to create their properties as much as it doesn’t jeopardize other people’s ability to create the same wealth. Furthermore, he emphasizes the following limitation when he argues, “as anyone can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils; so much he may by his labor fix a property in. Whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others.” This limit was used to depict that God’s creation is there to benefit humans; however, they should not spoil or destroy it.

In “The Earth Belongs to Nobody,” Jean-Jacques Rousseau claims that the institution of private property is a terrible error that leads to what?

Rousseau argues that people create a property through the right of the first occupant. This is legitimate when it meets the condition that land cannot be occupied, no one should occupy more than what they need for survival, and one can claim possession of the property after laboring over the land (Rousseau, n.d.). However, he was more interested in the outcome of the institution of private property. Thus he challenged private property owners by asking them, “are you unaware that a multitude of your brothers perish or suffer from a need of what you have in excess.” Hence he sees the suffering associated with private property as unjustified evil and a terrible error that could lead to fights and murders.

G.W.F. Hegel argues that the “rationale of property,” or the reason why private property is first established, is to be found in “the supersession of the pure subjectivity of personality” (195). What do you think he means by this?

Hegel characterized idealism into the following principle. First, the way things are done daily and the mindset of people does not reflect the actual world, but it is how it appears in no criticized category (Wilson, 2022). Furthermore, he claimed the true reflection of the earth is in the self-conscious mind; however, people neglect that and base their thoughts on physical and mathematical methodologies. Through this, Hegel meant that the world is a reflection of the mind. This is depicted through his idea that a limited being requires an infinite and unlimited being; however, the finite being should be the dependent element implying that truth becomes the relationship of harmony between thoughts.

In “Money, the Universal Whore,” Karl Marx argues that William Shakespeare has articulated “two properties of money in particular” (204). What are these two properties? How would you explain them in your own words? Can you think of examples to illustrate these two properties of money?

The two properties of money articulated by William Shakespeare are that money is a visible divinity and is a common whore (Marx, n.d.). Through visible divinity, he meant humans could own their natural properties into their contraries through money. For instance, the power of money lies in its character in those things one cannot do and to which all their elemental powers are incapable can be done through money. For example, if one is longing for a particular dish and is not strong enough to go for it on foot, money can fetch it for them. Furthermore, he depicts money as a common whore implying that money has a distorting power. Money has the capabilities to transform fidelity to infidelity, love to hate, hate to love, and virtue to vice.

The origin of property, at least if we pay attention to “actual history,” is what, according to Karl Marx (in “The True Foundation of Private Property”)?

Based on Karl Marx, all property relations in the past have been continually subjected to historical change. For instance, the French Revolution abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property, which came through dispossessing others and then led to the invention of a legal code to justify robbery (Westmoreland, 2019). When we shift back to the 18th century to the imposition of bourgeois property, it came about by seizure of common lands, which was done through force. Later, legal documents were provided to defend the robbery.

In Aesop’s fable The Grasshopper and the Ants, why don’t the ants give the grasshopper something to eat? If you were one of the ants, would you feed the grasshopper? Why or why not?

The ants failed to give grasshopper food because they had asked him several times to collect and store food, but he failed to listen to them and was busy making music (Learning, 2018). Being told to dance to his music was the best answer since he was supposed to suffer the consequences of his laziness. If I were the ants, I would not have fed the grasshopper since he is very lazy, and instead of finding solutions to his problems, he comes up with excuses. Thus he deserved to be neglected, and thus people should prepare adequately when they have time for their future needs.

What is the true foundation of freedom in a political community (or commonwealth), according to Gerald Winstanley?

There are many contradictions regarding the theory of true foundations of freedom in a political community. In contrast, others claim that it lies in the rules and regulations of the land that allows free trading, which allows business people to have all the patents, licenses, and restraints removed. However, this is a freedom that is more centered on the conqueror. Many theories encounter limitations, thus not depicting the full version of the true foundation of freedom that settles a commonwealth in peace. However, based on Gerald Winstanley proper foundation of liberty is the free enjoyment of humans on the earth. This is where they are supposed to receive nourishment and preservation (Winstanley, n.d.). Therefore, all that people labor for are the enjoyment of the earth, and they constantly yawn to enjoy the unrestricted use of the earth.

What are the consequences of the production of stupidity as a byproduct of labor specialization, according to Smith?

The division of labor was geared towards increasing productivity and efficiency within the industry. However, Smith was cautious that the increased specialization would render people stupid (Skwire, 2016). If someone was an all-around person, his role is decreased and centered on only one area of specialization, decreasing his intellectual demands. Furthermore, it will reduce one’s creativity, sympathy, and broader meaning and existence of human features that needs people to think beyond their limits. Thus, based on Smith’s theory, people are encouraged to be dynamic and have the capabilities to look for solutions rather than rely on others. Therefore it discourages specialization.

Why would such a devilish cult leader be able to attract followers, according to Dostoyevsky?

People are operating from fatal blindness, and the devilish cult leaders are projecting all their rage to the external world. Therefore, these people are weak and unable to think for themselves, so they are being swung around like waves by the cult leaders (Sweeny, 2017). It is not surprising that people find themselves in such situations because it overpowers their vulnerabilities and loneliness of facing the existential dragons. Still, these leaders offer a refuge place for their cowardly impulses.

According to Max Weber, “the world is disenchanted” (383). What does this claim by Weber mean?

Disenchanted is the cultural rationalization and devaluation of religion in modern society. Based on Weber, in western culture, scientific understanding is more valued than beliefs because scientific are based on facts (Chua, 2022). Also, processes are oriented toward rational goals, unlike in traditional societies. Therefore, that claim meant that the advent of scientific innovation to the world made it transparent and demystified, making the theological and supernatural accounts of the world that involved spirits and gods plausible. This implied that science had the capabilities to explain everything in rational terms meaning that the world became predictable and intellectualized.

Pick one of Adorno’s ‘objective’ or ‘subjective’ conditions for regression to ‘barbarism.’

Adorno’s condition for regression to barbarism is the scientific culture which is a general term indicating that humans have the capabilities to understand by reason and rationality. The people opening their minds and becoming disenchanting and demythologizing present themselves as liberation from mythology and blind beliefs that existed in the traditional setting (Nas, 2008). Therefore, I think Adorno is claiming that myth is already enlightenment. This implies that humans are trying to understand nature to have the full capabilities of controlling it. This is so because myth is a form of civilization, and when it faces rejection, it implies a denial of its source. Furthermore, the problem he identifies is still relevant since the world has not fully transformed and some people still live in mythical theories; thus, it needs further exploration.