Compare And Contrast Columbus And John Locke

441 Words2 Pages
The theory of allowing resource to be the commons can be considered a tragedy and will ultimately not end well in the long run. Particularly when we consider land this becomes true. Locke explains that by working on the land sufficiently that land is considered yours. His ideals coincide with the U.S Homestead Act of 1868 which granted land to anyone who lived on it for five years, built a structure and survived. Carolyn Finney from University of Kentucky explains that because of this act the relationship we have with land forever changed. For before this, according to Locke land was given to us by God and needed to be used advantageously by labor. Christopher Columbus came and ‘found’ America in 1492 and began laboring the land but what about the Native American’s that had cultivated the land before? Who does this property belong to? Locke justifies this answer by explaining that they are in the state of nature so they lacked progression and were not using the land advantageously as God had intended. Hardin agrees but explains the problem with this in an example in Massachusetts during the Christmas season the city allowed free parking which in the end was a failure because if the space is already scarce letting it become the commons did not benefit anyone except for the small amount of self-interested people who parked. An example of this…show more content…
They go further by explaining that the root of the problem is money and welfare. It is impossible to be in the state of nature because we live in a society with a governing body. And if all land was common, there would be no preservation of others because eventually resources will decrease to the point when humans won’t be able to survive. We can’t trust humans to engage in a productive lifestyle without government intervention due to our innate behavior and
Open Document