In today’s world where everyone is quick to judge, and boundaries of property are set in black and white, the news story “Davis to return statue to university” by Daarel Burnette II on the Chicago Tribune, managed to overrule the norm by using Locke’s logic of how private property can be obtained.
The statue titled “Defiance” (a statue of a slave woman) was taken from Chicago State University by Arnold Jordan and given to State Rep. Monique Davis (his girlfriend). Arnold Jordan claimed to have found the statue lying on the floor of Chicago State University’s warehouse, among broken furniture, and collecting dust; which by Locke’s reasoning is not being used to its potential, so by all means, it can be claimed by someone else.
Locke’s theory of private property tells us that we can acquire as much as we want as long as we don’t let any of it go to waste. By not only storing the statue, but by doing it in a manner that was inappropriate to the point of possibly harming the statue, Chicago State University was letting the statue go to waste and therefore stealing property that could be of use to someone else.
In the end, Monique Davis agreed to return the statue to the Chicago State University, who intends on using the statue on a display in front of the library. And it is obvious that it is due to the property norms of today. But I can’t help but wonder if such situation had presented itself at a time where Locke’s views were predominant, if Davis would be obligated to give back the statue once the University displayed interest in using it again, or if it would be a “users keepers” and Chicago State University would have forfeited their right of use, when they stopped doing so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally understand the logic and Locke's theory that is supporting behind this issue. Everything should work to its potential, and Chicago State University definitely was not using the statue to its potential, it was just rotting in the warehouse, therefore, one can claim it as long as he uses the object to its potential. In this case, Chicago State University certainly did do so. But here is the problem, what classifies as potential, Locke sure did not explain it in his book. What if it was a gold brick that was rotting in the warehouse, I know it probably would not happen, just hypothetically speaking. Could someone claim it even though he knew that it was not his? I think one can never ever claim something that is owned by someone else without the consent of the owner. That is how the world operates today, at least from what I know. Locke's philosophy might work hundreds of years ago, but it definitely would not work today.
ReplyDelete