Comments on: Appropriation; Private; Property http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2009/01/appropriation-private-property.html animals : social theory : violence Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:41:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Craig http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2009/01/appropriation-private-property.html/comment-page-1#comment-43072 Craig Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:03:24 +0000 http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/?p=690#comment-43072 Both of you are, of course, correct. Macpherson has fallen out of favour in the secondary literature due to a shift in Locke scholarship attempting to understand his relation to the Glorious Revolution - hence, much work is one when a particular passage of the <i>Two Treatises</i> was written. As for Schmitt, I've been wondering whether to include him or not - the digression/excursus on appropriation is already quite long! But, yes, in general Schmitt is instructive on this point. Both of you are, of course, correct. Macpherson has fallen out of favour in the secondary literature due to a shift in Locke scholarship attempting to understand his relation to the Glorious Revolution – hence, much work is one when a particular passage of the Two Treatises was written. As for Schmitt, I’ve been wondering whether to include him or not – the digression/excursus on appropriation is already quite long! But, yes, in general Schmitt is instructive on this point.

]]> By: Roland http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2009/01/appropriation-private-property.html/comment-page-1#comment-43071 Roland Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:38:56 +0000 http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/?p=690#comment-43071 Relevant, here, might be Schmitt's focus on Greek nomos and Icelandic-Germanic land-nama/land-nehmen. Land-appropriation in religious societies is a manifestation of the sacred because it mimics the cosmogony and consecrates the space as a new spiritual center for the people as a whole. Land-appropriation for ancient Greeks is common appropriation, and any division into public or private "property" is a subsequent product of distribution, and not appropriation. In other words, land-appropriation is originally the act of a political unity antecedent to the formation of any public-private distinctions in property. Relevant, here, might be Schmitt’s focus on Greek nomos and Icelandic-Germanic land-nama/land-nehmen. Land-appropriation in religious societies is a manifestation of the sacred because it mimics the cosmogony and consecrates the space as a new spiritual center for the people as a whole. Land-appropriation for ancient Greeks is common appropriation, and any division into public or private “property” is a subsequent product of distribution, and not appropriation. In other words, land-appropriation is originally the act of a political unity antecedent to the formation of any public-private distinctions in property.

]]> By: Mads LJ http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2009/01/appropriation-private-property.html/comment-page-1#comment-43063 Mads LJ Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:32:15 +0000 http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/?p=690#comment-43063 Hi Craig, I have just been reading C. B. Macphersons "The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism", and thought I would make this comment: Macpherson mentions some connections between appropriation and what is “proper” and right in Locke, as you do, although in a different way. Macpherson notices that Locke’s natural right justification of property (as a product of one’s labor) in the end, with the introduction of money, circumvents the natural right limitations on the right to property so as to become essentially a defence of unlimited accumulation of capital and land, and of making something your own through the purchase of other people’s labor. So, Macpherson says, after the introduction (by common consent) of money in the state of nature unlimited accumulation and appropriation of land (and capital) is what is rational, that is in accordance with the law of nature, and therefore moral. Moreover this means that, according to Locke, only those who are able to accumulate and appropriate land are able to act in afully rational way. Therefore the labouring classes, as they sell their labor and live from hand to mouth, aren’t rational, that is in a way sub-human, and should not be allowed political influence. They are both inside and outside society at the same time. Objects of government policy and administration but not political subjects. /Mads LJ Hi Craig,
I have just been reading C. B. Macphersons “The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism”, and thought I would make this comment:

Macpherson mentions some connections between appropriation and what is “proper” and right in Locke, as you do, although in a different way. Macpherson notices that Locke’s natural right justification of property (as a product of one’s labor) in the end, with the introduction of money, circumvents the natural right limitations on the right to property so as to become essentially a defence of unlimited accumulation of capital and land, and of making something your own through the purchase of other people’s labor. So, Macpherson says, after the introduction (by common consent) of money in the state of nature unlimited accumulation and appropriation of land (and capital) is what is rational, that is in accordance with the law of nature, and therefore moral.

Moreover this means that, according to Locke, only those who are able to accumulate and appropriate land are able to act in afully rational way. Therefore the labouring classes, as they sell their labor and live from hand to mouth, aren’t rational, that is in a way sub-human, and should not be allowed political influence. They are both inside and outside society at the same time. Objects of government policy and administration but not political subjects.

/Mads LJ

]]>