“John Locke’s arguments for the first acquisition of property law have no relevance of the modern property law” Discuss.
This is an exam question which is asked every single year in my property law course. I need you to read his article on labor theory of property. You must talk about the sufficiency and spoliation proviso.
However, it will be seen that there is a logical problem with his theory ( read the apple example 4apple/5people)
Then apply to Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld article, as an example i don’t have a right to pick a free newspaper in the underground if there isn’t any left, I have a privilege. So, to save Locke’s theory it should be argued that what locke means that you should leave others with privilege, not a claim right,
Then when you discuss if john lockes theory is relevant, talk about intellectual property : ei, cure for cancer- everyone is looking for it to earn money and if you are the inventor, you can keep the profit on it but when looking at sufficiency proviso : should you give away to all cancer patients?
Then you can talk about financial crises, it is quite relevant to this subject as well.
Lastly, you must talk about adverse possession. ( apply to Limitation Act- for unregistered land and the case of Pye and Graham. For registered land, labour theory does work with it, whoever is using it better than the other, should own it ( spoliation theory)
Some things to mention: his labour principle is all about thinking about others, the capitalism we have violets the spoliation provisio because the whole point of capitalism is not to think of others.
An academic, ROBERTO UNGER said that John locke is kind of in the between of karl marx and adam smith which is the best one, you can quote from him.
I need a clear thesis, with not-too complicated language. I don’t need any footnotes as I will write it in the exam. I need the provisos to be well-explained .