Part 1: Compare and contrast the view of private property in Locke, Rousseau, and Spencer. Specifically, refer to Locke, “Labour as the Basis of Property,” Rousseau, “The Earth Belongs to Nobody,” and Spencer, “The Right to the Use of the Earth.” First, explain each author’s position and what they are arguing for (i.e. how does private property come in to existence? Who has claim to it? How must it be used? etc.). Then, I want you to elaborate on what 2022 America would look like in terms of how we relate to property under each respective understanding of how property works — would we relate to property/possessions differently? What, if anything, would be the same? Would this be a good or bad thing, and why. Part 2: Compare and contrast the essays by Hume and Marx on the issue of distributive justice (“The Impossibility of Equality” and “From Each According to His Abilities, To Each According to His Needs,” respectively). What is each author’s position on the possibilities for distributive justice? How is economic justice to be distributed and what is it about that particular method that makes this pursuit worthwhile? answer in your own words whether or not economic justice is something that a society should concern itself with — we are heavily invested in equal rights and equal treatment under the law, but where does economic justice fit in to our political project? Elaborate your response with the benefits and/or drawbacks of concerns with notions of economic justice, and the potential implications (positive and/or negative) you believe it might have for our society.
