Is it wrong, in the Lockean way, to accumulate massive amounts of money?
Or in other terms, is it wrong to focus so much on accumulating massive amounts of money that you disadvantage others? It is not so much the actual act of saving money that I am concerned with, but with the consequences of doing so.
Or maybe, was Locke worried about the morals of it all in the first place? Or did he only care about whether or not someone had acquired something naturally/through trading and as long as money does not spoil, it would be fine?
I remember someone in class saying that having "too much" does not really happen since money can be passed down after death.
But yeah if anyone had any thoughts, that'd be cool
Cliff
I, too, felt conflicted when we discussed Locke's acceptance of mass accumulation of wealth, whereas everything else should only be collected to a limit of "need". There's a very iffy line between the two. Does a person of wealth not buy things in excess? Locke lacks a strong value definition for need, or logical consideration for what man's "nature" does with money. The accumulation of wealth, for one, leads to greed and jealousy, and particularly aggression between men when class distinction becomes greater and great--a strong trigger for rebellion. So perhaps Locke can justify his healthy bank account with this argument, if revolution leads to the perfect civil society.
ReplyDeleteI think that Locke's principal of take enough to survive and enjoy, leave enough for others, and do not waste in reference to how to acquire property is the key here. I think that you are allowed to acquire money because it does not break the principle of waste, but you still must leave enough for others to use. I don't think he was concerned with greed unless it turned into an infringement on others' rights.
ReplyDeleteIn the first line it should principles* sorry I didn't edit before I sent.
ReplyDeleteI haven't studied economics in depth, but doesn't great accumulation of wealth in individuals in an economy affect prices to match those buyers' ability to spend, creating barriers for poorer individuals to attain the same purchase? I'm thinking about how the price of university, supposedly, continues to rise because a percentage of the population can afford the outrageous expense. I know education isn't perhaps a necessity, and it's not a material good which can spoil, so the economic effects may be very different. But I wonder if Locke is over-simplifying economics in his ideas. And I still argue a person with money is far more inclined to waste, so I believe Locke lacks realistic consideration for some of his points.
ReplyDelete