John Locke systematically elaborated his theory of property rights in his masterpiece "Treatise of Government"，Considering that labor is the origin of personal property rights，is the basis and standard for defining the ownership of personal property rights。But Locke does not think so，As long as a person exerts labor on the natural commons，You can obtain property without restrictions。Property acquired by individuals based on labor is subject to the following restrictions，What Locke calls the waste bet365 withdrawal and the sufficiency bet365 withdrawal。For both clauses，Jeremy Waldron has launched a powerful critique of them with his profound explanatory skills，Think that none of them can achieve the restrictive effect Locke wants。

In Locke’s opinion，As an exclusive right, property rights are not without any limitations。The occupied resources should be for human enjoyment，“Who can use something to meet the needs of life as much as possible before it spoils，Whoever can use his labor to determine his property rights in bet365 withdrawal thing within that limit；If it exceeds bet365 withdrawal limit, it is not what he deserves，It belongs to others”。Therefore，Those unused items will become shared again，regardless of whether someone has exerted labor on them。The reason why Locke takes such a position on property rights，Because he always puts God’s commandment that things should be used in the most fundamental position，All regulations cannot be violated。Therefore，It is necessary to analyze the specific application of "use" in Locke's context，So that we can define which behaviors violate bet365 withdrawal restriction。

According to Waldron，The concept of "use" roughly contains two meanings in Locke's theoretical background: one is consumption in the usual sense，Including consumption to meet survival，Also includes productive consumption to achieve bet365 withdrawal purpose；The second is aesthetic use and use as commodities in exchange。The two meanings are derived from Locke's limitation of "use" to satisfy "any good of life"。Therefore，As long as any one of these two meanings is met，can satisfy the no-waste claim required by bet365 withdrawal clause。In accordance with these regulations，Waldron analyzed Locke’s theory from two aspects。

First，On the level of destruction，Explain two aspects of the concept of "use"，To stipulate in what sense destruction will not violate the waste clause。According to the analysis made by Waldron，Destruction caused by the use of items in accordance with their nature does not constitute a violation of the waste clause。Take rice as an example，In itself, it is used to satisfy people's hunger，So people eat it out of hunger，so that its existence is destroyed，bet365 withdrawal does not violate the waste clause。But，If the item is not in use，Destroyed due to the owner's negligence or intention，So that the object does not serve any purpose for people，Then such destruction will be regarded as a violation of the waste clause。Because according to Locke，bet365 withdrawal is a serious violation of God’s commandments，Should be punished，Others can take possession of items previously held by them。

Second，Analysis of people using objects for certain benefits，To indicate what kind of beneficial use is subject to bet365 withdrawal clause。During analysis，Waldron used a scene from the movie The Grapes of Wrath，An armed farmer guarding a pile of rotting oranges。In bet365 withdrawal case，Letting oranges rot can maintain the market price of oranges，Thereby making farmers richer、Better life。bet365 withdrawal situation seems to satisfy the requirement that the use is to obtain some kind of benefit in life，But it still violates the waste clause。Unless the farmer’s explanation for bet365 withdrawal behavior is: we are using rotten oranges as fertilizer，Otherwise they will not be immune from punishment。In Waldron’s opinion，The reason why bet365 withdrawal explanation can be established，The reason is that compared to the previous explanation，It can at least show that oranges are actually used。

In fact，Locke introduced the waste clause in response to bet365 withdrawal possible opinion，That is, "if you collect acorns or other fruits that grow on the ground, etc.，Constitutes the right to these things，Then anyone can take as much as they wish”。However，In Waldron’s opinion，The effectiveness of the waste clause is limited。Through his analysis of human desires，Divide its effectiveness into two stages accordingly。In Stage 1，When people are content to live "a simple and poor life"，Their desires are limited within narrow limits，Then the use of items is limited to meeting one’s own survival needs。They have no desire other than eating，The output of a small piece of land is sufficient。bet365 withdrawal way，Subject to waste clause，No one will occupy more land，Thus ensuring a relatively rough equality。But，Once people’s desires change，Then it will enter the second stage accordingly。At bet365 withdrawal time，People’s desires have become diversified，And there are various patterns that satisfy them。Then，The small piece of land that could only satisfy their hunger before was no longer suitable for their other desires。Especially with the introduction of currency，Food can be easily exchanged or converted into currency for storage，No matter how many items are produced by cultivating the land, they will not be destroyed uselessly because they are difficult to preserve。bet365 withdrawal creates conditions for large-scale land occupation through labor，Without changing every word of the waste clause。bet365 withdrawal way，The inevitable result is，The emergence and growing inequality，Conflicts also increased。At bet365 withdrawal stage，The effectiveness of the waste clause is almost gone。

The specific content of the sufficiency clause can be briefly expressed as: leaving enough equally good things for others。According to bet365 withdrawal request，The traditional explanation is that，If one does not leave enough equally good things for others，Then his possession is illegal。The reason is，He acquires exclusive rights that undermine the ability of others to acquire equal and similar rights。Accordingly，The traditional interpretation is that the sufficiency clause is a further restriction on legal possession。

Waldron raised three objections。First，Locke used it to emphasize that，A person who possesses under sufficient conditions will not infringe on the interests of others。Second，Locke connects the age of plenty that does not require consent with the age of barren money that requires consent，Maybe I just want to express，When there is nothing good enough left for others，Unilateral possession cannot be a sufficient basis for exclusive property rights，You need to agree to join at bet365 withdrawal time。Third，In discussion about British commons，Locke made it clear that private possession may not necessarily produce the benefits produced by farming as a whole composed of people other than the possessor。bet365 withdrawal statement contradicts Locke's statement that private ownership brings great benefits to uncultivated land，Whether the latter is true becomes a question，And bet365 withdrawal is the closest thing to a sufficiency clause。Therefore，Waldron advocates，Locke just treated the sufficiency clause as the effect of the early action of the waste clause，Rather than as another clause capable of limiting by itself。With the introduction of currency，Larger possessions allowed，At bet365 withdrawal time, the conditions restricting land ownership are no longer restrictions，But the possession of others。It can be seen from bet365 withdrawal，In these two periods，Restrictions on possession always exclude so-called adequacy clauses。To bet365 withdrawal point，Waldron completes the first objection to the sufficiency clause。

The second objection starts from such a presupposition，That is, people are under conditions of insufficient resources。In bet365 withdrawal situation，A person has the ability to possess the required resources，At the same time, he also understands that his possession will cause others to lose the opportunity of similar possession。Then，When the adequacy clause is established，Should he take possession？The answer is obviously no，Because his possession makes it no longer possible to “leave enough equally good things for others”。If people in bet365 withdrawal situation follow bet365 withdrawal rule，The only choice is to turn around and leave，Then starve to death，Others too。But，bet365 withdrawal result violates the provisions of natural law，Because the basic requirement of natural law is to preserve oneself and all mankind。Due to the requirements of natural law，Possession of necessary food and shelter is authorized，And humans must do bet365 withdrawal。It can be seen from bet365 withdrawal，The clause “leaving enough for others of the same good” cannot be regarded as a restriction on legal possession，Also contradicts the basic natural law advocated by Locke，Therefore the so-called sufficiency clause is simply not valid as a restriction on possession。

Even if the presupposition of the second refutation is discarded，Also admitting the existence of a sufficiency clause，Locke’s theory still has self-contradictory problems in an era of abundant resources。Revelation of bet365 withdrawal contradiction，bet365 withdrawal opens Waldron’s third refutation。bet365 withdrawal rebuttal is based on an argument proposed by Robert Nozick。Nozick asks us to consider bet365 withdrawal situation: “A person Z now does not have enough and equally good things left for him to possess。The last person Y in possession caused Z to lose his previous freedom of movement over something，Thus Z’s situation has changed。Therefore，Y’s possession is not permitted by Locke’s restrictive clause。So，The penultimate person X in possession puts Y in a worse position，Because X’s conduct ended permissible possession。So，The possession of。”Obviously，bet365 withdrawal argument makes the usual sufficiency clause untenable。

It can be seen from bet365 withdrawal，Here in Waldron，The so-called sufficiency clause cannot be established。It is simply an effect of the early action of the waste clause，Rather than as another clause capable of limiting by itself。

　　(Author’s affiliation: Department of Philosophy, Peking University)