While people should not starve when the ground they walk on holds enough food for everyone, people should be allowed to possess property and use said property as they see fit, within reason. Sharing with everyone is not always a viable option. People take better care of something that they own, and working on something only to have it be taken by another who works on nothing would be unjust. Locke believed that property started out as unclaimed objects, and when an individual put ‘labor’ on the property, it became theirs. Unclaimed is being out in nature and without ownership. An example of such labor would be as soon as someone puts in the work to pick an apple off a tree, as long as that tree is unclaimed, that apple tree becomes theirs by right. On the other hand, Rousseau believed that property…show more content… A common problem in most modern day communist countries is “The Problem of the Free Rider”. A “Free Rider” is someone who benefits from society’s work while contributing little to nothing. In a society with property, where people work to obtain their needs, a “Free Rider” would not survive, and be forced to conform; however, in the society without property a “Free Rider” could survive and leech off the hard work of others. While people should not starve when there is food nearby, those that work to obtain said food have the right to it. If a fisherman spent hours catching fish, and a man who’s lived a life of indolence wants the fish, he should not feel as though he has a right to it. Working hard does not mean that others deserve what you’ve produced. If that were a society, then it would be a society of slaves. Workers would produce enough for everyone, while those that do not produce only consume, turning the workers into slaves for those that do not
