I was just reading an interesting article about a bank robbery. It seems that the robber took money from a credit union, and ran away while shooting at the police. You may ask yourselves how this relates to Locke, and the idea of labor and property. Well, as I was reading the article I stopped to ask myself "Is the robber the new owner of the stolen money according to Locke?" I mean, the guy worked up through a good deal of trouble in order to steal that money, and so according to Locke, he should be the rightful owner. Or not?
As Locke says, we own our bodies, therefore we own the work that comes out of us and that energy is embodied in "labor." Also, by putting our labor into something, we have made it private property. It is obvious that the bank robber instilled alot of labor into stealing the money, and therefore why shoudln't he become the rightful owner of it?
Now I understand that stealinng is not right, and of course as of today's society and its standards, the guy should be punished. But if we lived in a world according to Locke's rules, how would these actions be described? Would we still punish people for stealing or would it be ok since they put their labor into stealing?
Is it possible that Locke would disagree with this practice because it does not lead to productivity? Althogh this could be argued because Productivity is achieved anyway for one person or another, depending on the definition.
Link: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/police-gurnee-bank-robber-shot-at-cop.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very interesting post. I would have to argue that Locke would disagree with the idea that because the bank robber put labor into the stealing of the money then he has the right to that money. I think the first disagreement Locke would have is that this money was already someone else's property, and it was being used productively. Once someone has put their own labor into privatizing certain property, their property cannot be taken away unless it is not being used productively or it is being spoiled. On the other hand, one argument could be that since the money was sitting in a bank account, it was being spoiled in the sense of inflation. Because the value of the dollar was decreasing, part of the money was spoiling or being wasted. In that way, the money was actually being stolen from the common, and the bank robber would have justification in laboring the money(stealing it) to make it his. Good post.
ReplyDeleteYou have made interesting arguments about this article. Locke wouldn't say that the money is the robbers' even though they have instilled their labor in stealing it. Lock's ideology asserts that we can have anything our own by labor, not steeling, only when it’s in common. I used to work at a Credit Union and the money in there belong to the account holders because its their money that the credit union is momentary keeping and using for investment.
ReplyDeleteGreat comparison. I really like the idea that you're trying to expand here. The question we need to answer is where does Locke draw this line to acquiring private property? Also, does moral obligation have any effect on it? John did a great job in stating the facts of Locke's ideas of ownership as well. I feel though as the money is not necessarily being wasted because at some point some may be taken out to be put to use. Even though the robber did put his time and labor into stealing the money I believe Locke wouldn't agree that it should become his property. Technically the money that's there is the people's money, not even the banks. Therefore, he's stealing from everyone elses property. This was definitely a very good question for Locke's ideas!!!
ReplyDeleteYou article is an awesome example of how Locke's arguments can go awry. As you stated based on Locke's argument it initially appears that he would be on the side of the robber but if we examine a little further we would find that Locke would disagree. Locke would say that because the robbers labor lead to waste (insofar as the intended party that put their work into it initially did not get to use it), it did not equate to the bettering of mankind.Therefore, I believe that the stolen goods would not belong to the robber because someone else initially installed their labor and sweat in to making the money. This was definitely a great topic and a great way to infuse Locke's argument.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comparison! When I was looking for an article, I completely passed this one up thinking there was no way to compare. I like your explanation and questioning of whether the new owner can be the robber. I believe that Locke would not approve of the money being in the ownership of the robber only because it was already someone else's property. Locke does say that money is a way that people can own property without affecting others because it is not persihable. So, overall after this being said, my opinion is the bank robber does not have the right to the money.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting blog post and it does raise the question according to Locke, if the robber is the rightful owner of the money because he did put in his labor into stealing the money and since we own our labor and bodies, the money should be his. But I think Locke would disgree in this case because like everyone has already said the money was already someone else's property and stealing is a concerned a crime so the robber should be punished and the money returned to the actual owner who put his labor into it from the beginning. In my opinion, I think Locke believes that we are owners of the property if is it not owned by someone else in the beginning. If the robber did not steal the money, the money would have been his own and he would not be punished. I also think John made a good point when he talked about how Locke says things go to waste and are spoiled if we do not use them in the right amount of time which is true because the money was just going to waste and no one was using it until he stole it. But even though, Locke says common property becomes our own private property through the act of labor, I do not think Locke said people should steal to get their own property. He might people should do actual work to entitled to that property.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Locke would say that the bank robber has no right to the money that he stole. While he did put in "labor," it was definitely not productive labor. In fact, Locke would see the robbers actions in exactly the same way our society does: as immoral. He would say that the stock of money in the bank represents the labor of the bank's depositors. More specifically, this money represents the production of those who own it. When the robber steals this money, his labor is directed towards destruction rather than production. The labor of the depositors adds wealth to society, whereas the robber's labor merely redistributes wealth. His destructive labor is the antithesis of the productive labor that Locke champions.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting connection to Locke. The bank robber does not own the money though because this form of acquisition is not productive and he literary stole from another which under Locke’s thought is not justifiable. This “product” is not given by God to be common, but acquired by men; this is another reason why this action does not agree with Locke. Even though the robber stole the money from someone that was already saving it that does not meant that he will not hoard it too.
ReplyDeleteThis is a real interesting argument! In my opinion I don't think that Locke would agree with the concept whether the money should belong to the robbers. I feel that even though the robbers are putting effort into robbing the bank but then they are stealing someone Else property. Other people have put effort into earning the money and they put it in the bank. So i feel that the robbers should not be the owners of the money even though they are putting effort into robbing because that is basically putting effort into stealing someone else's property.
ReplyDeleteThank you all for your input. I appreciate the fact that you all believe this kind of "labor" to be unproductive, and therefore not ideal to Locke's thesis.
ReplyDeleteI guess I could argue that it is productive for the robber, but not as much for society and this leads to an accute self-interest, and no community achievement.
I think you took a very interesting approach to this story. I dont think I ever would have thought of someone stealing, and then that becoming their property. In a society that followed all of Lockes principles, I think that it would be okay to say that if someone did steal something, such as money, it could then become their property because of the labor they put into taking it. Although in our society today I dont think it would be okay, and definetly would not become someones property if they stole it. Good approach on this story though.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting relation to Locke’s thought. What if I take it into account like this? Locke just thinks we can mix our labor into something natural or common in order to make it our property. However, the money in this credit union is not natural any more. The money belongs to the one who own it, and who has worked to get it. Therefore, how can the robber just stole others’ “labor”. Money represents for our labor so that we can own it to exchange with others. So, the robber does not mix his labor into it and has no right to own it.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting comparison. The question you bring up is very good but I do not think Locke would approve of the robbers acquisition of money. He got the money in a dishonest way, therefore it is not rightfully his. When Locke discusses working for what you consume, i dont think he had stelaing from someone in mind.
ReplyDeleteI would say that Locke would believe the bank robber does not have right to that money. They money that he stole is someone else's, and that person probably put in at least 10 times for labor to get that money than the bank robber did. Although this is an interesting idea to think about I believe that the robber isn't leading to anything productive. All this is leading to for the robber is a nice stint in the state jail.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete