Interesting how circumstances can change the way people think about public property. Just because someone shoveled a space they feel entitled to it. Perhaps these residents are using this passage from John Locke "Two Treatises on Government" to justify their attempt at co-opting of public property:
""The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.""However, I don't believe Locke would not approve of using his words in this case with land legally appropriated for use "in the common"--it is no longer "in the state of nature"--or is it? If government fails in its duty to preserve the property in common (not plowing the road for the safety/convenience of its citizens),should/could it not be considered plunged back into the state of nature? It would be an interesting episode of COPS to see a resident use Locke to justify his place-holding of a public parking spot...I am guessing that would end with a tasing.
No comments:
Post a Comment