 |
| See the full panoramic picture here. |
In his Second Treatise, Locke predicates all of his moral conjectures on one fundamental concept - the state of nature. He emphasizes that in this state, one has "perfect freedom to order their actions… [and] naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another," asserting that all members of a community are free, equal, and possess the same natural rights (Locke 9-10). Some of these rights are given up when a community becomes a political society, but members still remain free and equal. Using the justification of freedom and equality, law-abiding squatters have the same right to adequate housing as anyone else does.
It seems as if Locke would also say that the City of Detroit is overextending their rights of acquisition because they own these homes and are not doing anything with them except allowing them to go to waste. Furthermore, he specifically relates his principle of acquisition to property, expressing that an individual can acquire property by adding their labor to it. These law-abiding squatters are occupying the premises and supposedly preventing the homes from going to waste… so it looks like the squatters do have a moral right to live there.
| VIDEO: Homeowner forced to live with squatter. |
I don't see the squatting situation being resolved anytime in the near future. The City of Detroit isn't going to somehow find a miraculous way to unload the majority of these houses, and generally speaking, its residents aren't getting enough money fast enough to purchase or otherwise legally occupy these houses. Based on his Second Treatise, what do you think Locke would say about the morality of this situation?
Media
1. boingboing.net 2012
2. foxnews.com 2012
References
1. Second Treatise by John Locke
I think I agree with you in that Locke would say that it is moral for them to be squatters. They aren't taking more than they need, either. They stick to one house and otherwise these houses would be just sitting there with no use. So, the squatters are not harming anyone or doing anything that exerts aggression towards others. I think then that Locke would say it is morally okay for these squatters to be living in these abandoned houses. He says that when one adds their own labor to an object, it becomes their own. I think that applies to this case because these squatters are taking an abandoned home and putting their time into making it livable for them. And because they are acquiring something that they can use reasonably to their advantage, they aren’t creating a problem. So, morally it would be their home to live in.
ReplyDeleteIn theory Locke would agree that the squatters were a good idea. However in today society not all the squatters are people who just can't afford a home. What I mean by saying this is, it would be a case by case issue. I think Locke would advocate if these people are apart of society or not. If its someone that hasn't had a job in 15 years or hasn't payed any taxes, I don't know if Locke would say they are apart of society. However if the house was given to someone deserving or apart of society and that person put the house to use, Locke would be for it.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Locke would agree with the squatters. Based on his ideologies, if a person is equal and has the right to look out for his/her best interest then they should take in upon themselves to squat. If this squatting was disallowed and enforced then the burden would be shifted to another area (i.e. homeless shelters) and still wouldn't solve any issues. This would mean that the individuals would have to find other means to receive equal opportunity to live (opportunities that could possibly be more detrimental then squatting). This is a temporary situation but one that I feel Locke would agree is necessary to support oneself and ones family. They are not hindering others equal rights if they choose to respect others who have already claimed a home.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jeffrey. I believe these squatting situations must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. This is because in some cases, these houses are used as what we city kids call "crack dens." Basically, these are homes where people go to have a place to do drugs, mainly crack. If we let ALL squatters stay, these "crack dens" will become more prevalent. However, there are some people who live in these abandoned homes so that they actually have shelter. Obviously, Locke would say that these people should be permitted to stay, and I believe so as well.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting comparison you have made. While I agree that according to Locke these squatters have the right to be there, I do not think they actually have a right to live in these houses. They are deserted, but that does not mean that you can just live in something that is not yours. Technically the bank owns the house. I can think of a lot of harm that could come out of this such as drug houses or drug production. I think the city of Detroit needs to find a way to get people to legally live in these houses, but I do not think that it is a good idea to have homeless people living there instead.
ReplyDelete