As known, according to Locke, even before a restrictive proviso of any kind comes into play, “improvement work” on a resource is required in order to justify its (original) acquisition. The interpretation of the Lockean proviso as both a necessary and sufficient condition is also based on the conviction that Nozick’s severe criticism of Locke’s theory of “added value” would seem to imply his rejection of that theory (as Varian 1975 Davis 1976 Lyons 1977 Wolff 1977 Ryan 1982 Waldron 1988 and Roark 2012: 690, also argue). The point is that Nozick says nothing about these possible additional conditions (Wolff 1991: 107). Other conditions would therefore need to be met for an original acquisition to be just. It might be held that the Lockean proviso is merely necessary. Another interpretation of Nozick’s thinking is possible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |