I was doing some philosophy reading the other day, and it was correctly criticizing modern critiques of Locke's Second Treastie Chapter 5 ("Property"), as being irrevelant in modern times, and being exploited to promote a laize-faire model of capitalism. While there are plenty of more popular, and probably more accurate interpretation of Locke, I think another interpretation might be of an order.

The three major points the Locke brings up in this chapter are the mixing of labor with a product to obtain wealth, using what one is appropiated, and leaving as much of a product as possible for everyone else to use. Yet, all of these things have a very modern existance and even neccessity.

Point 1: Mixing of Labor

Section 27 of the Second Treatise deals with this subject in particular. It argues that in a state of nature (something like 'pure irrationality') that the labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Is this ever not the case even in the highly rationalized world we live in?

What fundamentally is property in modern society? It is an area or an object given to one through the discresion of the state (everything is a policy of the state even if the policy is not to regulate or control). Property taxation makes it impossible to own land without state subjection.

More important is how you gain property in modern society: for most of us not with our hands. Instead it comes through a totally-rational (an anti-thesis of terms) coercisive device of the lagged paycheck: you work two weeks, and if the boss feels you've done a job enough to his statisfication (and to the terms of the bureaucracy), you'll be paid in for those weeks—of course they'll feel happy to hold your paycheck if certain bureacratic conditions are met, or reduce it.

What we need is a new-Lockean notion of labor beyond rational work that most of us do in the day time. It also demands a new notion of property, something not gained through such rational work. After all, such property gained in the form of currency is used to purchase something rational. This may appease a irrational wish for a while, but it will never be totally statisifactory.

You have to remember that when Locke wrote his Second Treastie, it was largely an irrational time—bureaucracy in the form of modern corporations and government did not exist. Locke personifies this even better with his the state of nature, using the example of the Indians. The Indians certainly had more rationality then European romanistists would like to admit.

So what is this concept of 'irrational' labor that I'm talking about? It could be any realm where your experience pays you off, or your actions lead to direct or physical statisifaction. Maybe it's painting your house, fixing your car, or working on a garden. You labor and mix them with products to get results that you own both physcologically and physically. The state can't take away directly—they could till under your garden for growing pot, take your car and house for back taxes, but they couldn't gain your paint job, except maybe for improving the value at an auction, but that's minimal compared your gain in benifit.

The only coercision in projects that you do yourself, within the realms of legality, is your decision. You are totally autonomous within in the realm of legality, although that can be narrow. There is no question that you own the finished product, unlike where in work you typically only own the paycheck after a delayed period (which is hard, at least for me to correlate to actual work).

Point 2: Use What You Have Appropiated To Your Self Before Spoiling

If the previous natural law did not make sense, then consider the second one: don't let shit spoil before you use it. Is this not what they teach you in Kindergarden? I know I should feel guilty for not eating those bagels before they got all tought today (three days later), but at least the chickens are happy. It seems like a basic law of nature not to waste.

When is okay to waste? Is there ever a time when humankind needs to do such a thing, is it okay to let the stale bagel go to the chickens? If the consquences are such that there is little effect on ourselves or the greater society, it would seem to partially mitigate the problem of waste. Even better yet would try to apply waste to some pratical use, be it recycling, compost, fill, or just plain feeding it to animals.

The fundamental problem with wasting is it is labor misued and societal products not fairly distributed. If you had given that pestiside to your neighboor before it had expired, then maybe they could have gotten some real use out of it. You either labored or worked to obtain something, and if you waste it, you negate the benifit of labor and work.

Point 3: Leave as Much As You Can For Others To Use

Do they not teach this to Kindergardeners? But people ignore this rule all the time, as they think of only themselves. Or so it would seem. After all, this planet is for all to share, not for the exploitation of the few. We are talking about waste minimazation here.

Locke probably had no concept of fancy schemes of recycling or reuse of products that people have today, although his culture had primative and natural modes of doing such things.

It also gets into the notion of leave no trace, and minimizing your personal footprint on this earth. No littering, camping on stable ground, not pissing in local streams, and the alike help leave what you can leave.

The problem often comes in with technology: it causes people to use up a lot more then they previously would have. The case study here is nothing but everybody's favorite: the 4-wheeler. This 'machine' as some would call it, chews up a lot of ground, leaves big mud puddles, and so forth. So it would seem to violate this rule: but does it?

I don't have an easy rebuttel to this point—yes, ATVs leave more 'damage' to trails then hikers, as they are bigger and tend to do a lot more tearing up of the land. But are they taking away from what other ATVers are able to use? Yes, if the mud puddle is too deep.