Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKane, Johnen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T10:10:18Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T10:10:18Z
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.date.modified2009-11-20T05:15:48Z
dc.identifier.issn15450449en_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://www.eighteenthcenturythought.org/en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/18011
dc.description.abstractLocke rejected Spanish justifications of colonization based on a right of conquest and tried to show how English settlement could be both just and orderly. His theory of property in the Second Treatise, though it aimed at defending property at home against confiscation from above or below, was also geared toward English colonization. Though Locke's argument began by justifying the natural right to property of indigenous peoples, it was extensively employed to rationalize indigenous dispossession in North America and Australia. This paper explains how Locke accomplished this through a rhetorical tour de force that skillfully elided two distinct but seldom distinguished theories: one of simple appropriation - a theory of Man the Taker; and the other of value?a theory of Man the Maker. These are conceptually connected by their common element, the efficacy of labor in rights creation. In the state of nature an individual's use of labor to appropriate part of nature's bounty defined the simple rights of Man the Taker. But labor can also add value (utility) to natural materials that in-themselves are of little value, simultaneously creating property rights in the improved material. In the case of land, industrious labor adds value by 'improving' productivity and creating the superior title of Man the Maker, trumping the simple occupation and use of unimproved commons. This was the basis of a theory of complex commercial civilization that, applied in the colonial context where occupied lands were regarded as 'waste,' allowed the just displacement of indigenous peoples.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.format.extent186578 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherAMS Pressen_US
dc.publisher.placeNew Yorken_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.amspressinc.com/ect.htmlen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom235en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto253en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalEighteenth Century Thoughten_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume3en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode360104en_US
dc.titleMan the Maker versus Man the Taker: Locke’s Theory of Property as a Theory of Just Settlementen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Business School, School of Government and International Relationsen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2007 AMS Press.This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.en_AU
gro.date.issued2007
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record