As you will see in the readings, Locke has clear ideas about natural law and private property, especially in
terms of the conditions under which one’s rights to private property are justified. Do you believe that Locke is
right in arguing that unless you worked your land (or any other resource) you don’t deserve to call it your
“private property”? How would you justify this position? What counter-arguments can you suggest?
If you find a good idea or principle, please bold it; make sure to separate the page into paragraphs, each
focusing on one issue. Make sure to quote from the text (don’t worry about page numbers if you are using
digital texts)
The post John Locke – Second Treatise first appeared on COMPLIANT PAPERS.
