John Locke's Abuse Of Private Property In The United States

Today, liberal democracies champion the perks of democratization because of an axiom that is apparently self-evident: that all men are created equal. With this principle, a democratic state functions on behalf of all the people it serves, therefore it is fair to assume that it cannot function without securing the well-being of all its citizens, or the social good of all individuals residing within the state. The United States, as a trailblazing democracy, has a primary obligation to secure the social good of its citizens through democratic means, rather than through an obligation to enlarge the scope of it through superficial, utility maximization. Ultimately, when placed in a deceptively regressive system that facilitates abuse of the social

Therefore, labor is a valid claim to private property that should not be coerced by the state. Adopting a utilitarian framework contravenes an individual’s claim to private property; basic utilitarianism views individuals as means to an end rather than ends in and of themselves (Bentham, “Utility”, pp. 306-7). Furthermore, a standard utilitarian approach would justify the violation of private property rights through the doctrine of negative responsibility, or the idea that individuals have a duty to prevent negative consequences from actions they fail to do or fail to prevent from occurring (Williams, “ Negative Responsibility”, pp. 95-97). This moral obligation forces an individual to continuously make compromises of private-property ownership. This, as Williams posits, is problematic because it is simply too demanding of the individual; the individual cannot be held responsible for all possible negative outcomes that are out of his hand, especially when there is an obvious shift in agency from the state to the individual. Compelling the individual to assume this negative responsibility exonerates the state from rectifying the inequality it sanctioned and stifles an individual’s ability to freely claim private-property as they attempt to be

According to Peter Singer, effective altruists seek to maximize the well-being of society through productive capital, using excess capital to assists those in need, particularly through charitable contributions ( Singer, “The Most Good”, pp. 4-5) . This assumes that self-made capital maximizers , such as Bill Gates, essentially donate most of their wealth to charitable causes that directly impact the lives of those in need. This is a very appealing obligation that could inspire, rather than coerce, a utility maximizer, especially one with the means to acquire productive capital without much to lose. A mutually-beneficial outcome appears to arise from such a situation-- all recipients have some gain in private-property. However, this obligation is deceptive because of real-world constraints that limit the practicality and applicability of utilitarian