John Locke systematically explained its own property rights theory，I believe that labor is the origin of personal property rights，is the basis and standard of defining the ownership of personal property rights。But Locke does not think for this，A person only needs to apply labor as long as a person in nature，You can obtain property without restrictions。The property obtained by the individual based on labor is limited by the following terms，that is, the waste and sufficient terms of Locke said。For these two terms，Jeremy Waldron (Jeremy Waldron) has a strong criticism of them with its profound explanation skills，I think they can’t achieve the restriction effect that Locke wants。

From Locke's view，property rights as an exclusive right are not without any limit。The resource possessing should be used for human enjoyment，"Who can use it as much as possible before one thing is corrupted，Who can determine his property rights on this thing with his labor within that limit; if this limit is not what he deserves，Just belong to others "。So，Those items that have not been used will be re -become common，Regardless of whether someone has exerted labor for them。Locke takes such a position in property rights，It is because he always puts God's commandments -the items must be used — placed in the most fundamental position，All regulations can not violate it。So，It is necessary to analyze the specific use of "use" in the Lockean context，bet365 Play online games Therefore, which behaviors can be defined that violated this restrictions。

According to Walderlan's view，The concept of "use" roughly contains two layers of meaning in Locke's theoretical background: First, consumption in the usual sense，both include consumption that meets survival，It also includes productive consumption to achieve this purpose; the second is the aesthetic use and the use of the commodity in the exchange。The meaning of these two layers is based on Locke's limited "use" to satisfy "any benefit of life"。Therefore，As long as you meet any of these two meanings，It can meet the not required for this clause.。According to these regulations，Walderlan analyzed the Locke theory from two aspects。

First，On the destruction level，Make two descriptions of the concept of "use"，Destruction in the specified sense will not violate the waste of waste。According to the analysis made by Walderen，Destruction caused by the use of the item does not constitute a violation of the waste of terms。Take rice as an example，It is used to satisfy people's hunger purpose，Therefore, people eat it out of hunger，So its existence is destroyed，This does not violate the waste of waste。but，If the item is not used，Destruction due to the negligence or heart of the holder，As a result，So this kind of destruction will be regarded as a violation of waste of the waste。Because of Locke's point of view，This is a serious violation of God's commandments，It should be punished，Others can go occupy the items they previously held。

Second，Analysis of people using items for people out of some benefits，To show what kind of interests are used to follow this Bet365 lotto review clause。During the analysis process，Walderlan used a scene in the movie "Angry Grape"，That is, the armed farm master guards a bunch of rotten oranges。In this situation，Making oranges rot can keep the market price of oranges，to make the farmers richer、Life is better。This situation seems to be satisfied. It is to obtain some benefit of life，But it still violates the waste terms。Unless the farmer's explanation of this behavior is: We use rotten oranges as fertilizers，Otherwise, they will not be punished。From Walderlan's view，This explanation can be established，The reason is relative to the previous explanation，It can at least indicate that oranges are really used in the ground。

In fact，Locke introduced waste clauses to cope with this possible opinion，That is, "If the fruits of the rubber or other land are collected，It constitutes the right to these things，Then anyone can take as much as possible according to their wishes "。But，From Walderlan's view，The effectiveness of the waste terms is limited。He analyzes the desire of people，Divide the effectiveness of its role into two stages。In stage 1，When people are satisfied with "a simple and poor life"，Their desire is limited within the narrow range，So the use of items is limited to meeting your own survival needs。They do not have any other desires except eating，The output of a small piece of land is sufficient to satisfy。This，Under the restrictions on the waste of the clause，No one will have more land，to ensure a relatively rough equality。but，Once people's desires change，So I entered the stage two correspondingly。At bet365 Play online games this time，People’s desires have become diverse，and also have various modes that meet them accordingly。So，A small piece of land that could only be satisfied with the full stomach before can no longer apply their other desires。Especially with the introduction of the currency，Food can be conveniently exchanged or converted into currency to save，No matter how many items are produced by the production of land, it will not be destroyed by useless land because it is difficult to save。This creates conditions for a large amount of land through labor，without the need to change the words of the waste of the terms。This is the case，The inevitable result is，Unwavering appears and continuously intensify，Conflict also increases with it。At this stage，The effectiveness of the waste of the clause is almost gone。

The specific content of adequate clauses can be briefly expressed as: leave enough things to be the same good for others。According to this requirements，Traditional explanation thinks，If a person has not left bet365 Play online games enough things to give others，So his possession is illegal。The reason is，The exclusive right he obtained harmed the ability of others to obtain the same and similar rights。Based on this，Traditional explanation believes that sufficient clauses are further restrictions on legitimate possession。

Walderen proposed three reasons for refutation。First，Locke uses what it wants to emphasize，People who are possessing under sufficient conditions will not infringe the interests of others。2，Locke will be linked to the era of enough money that needs to be agreed without consent，Maybe bet365 Play online games just want to express，When left without enough good, leave it to others，Unilateral possession cannot be used as a full foundation for exclusive property rights，You need to add consent at this time。third，In the discussion of British public land，Locke clearly stated that private possessions may not be able to produce the benefits generated by the overall cultivation of people outside the occupant。This statement is contradictory with the private possession of Locke's mentioned in the land that has produced huge benefits，Whether the latter is established into a question，This is where the closest provisions are mentioned。So，Walderlen Proposal，Locke just takes the effect of sufficient terms as a waste of clauses.，instead of being able to restrict the role of itself。With the introduction of the currency，The larger possession is allowed，At this time, the conditions to restrict land occupation are no longer limited terms，but the possession of others。This can be seen，In these two periods，It always does not include the so -called adequate terms。So far，Walderlen completed the first refutation of the sufficient terms。

The second refutation begins with such a preset，means that people are under the condition of insufficient resources。In this situation，The ability of a person to possess the required resources，At the same time, he also understands that his possession will cause others to lose similar possessive opportunities。So，With the establishment of adequate clauses，Should he possess? The answer is obviously negative，Because of his possession, it will no longer "leave bet365 Play online games enough things to give for others"。People who are in this case if follow this，I can only choose to turn around and leave，Then hungry and die，This is the case for others。but，This result violates the regulations of the natural law，The basic requirements of natural law are to preserve yourself and all human beings。Requirements from natural law，The necessary food and residence is authorized，And humans must do this。This can be seen，"Leave enough things for the same good to others" This clause can not be regarded as a limit on legal possession，It is also contradictory with the basic natural law claimed by Locke，Therefore, the so -called adequacy terms are not established at all。

Even if you abandon the premise of the second refutation，At the same time, acknowledge that there are sufficient clauses，Locke's theory still has a problem of self -conflict in the era of abundant resources。Revelation of this contradiction，Open Walderlan's third refutation。This heavy refutation is made in accordance with the argument proposed by Robert Nozick。Nozic, let's consider this situation: "One person Z now there is no enough as the same good thing to leave him with。The last person possessed Y made Z lose his freedom of action against something，so that the situation of Z changes。So，Y's possession is not allowed by Locke's restrictions。So，The inverted second person possessed x to make Y in a worse position，Because X's behavior has ended the allowable possessive。So，X's possession is not allowed ... and so on. This can be traced back to the first person who possesses permanent ownership. bet365 live casino games A。"Obviously，This argument makes the adequate clauses that are usually referred to cannot be established。

This can be seen，Here here，The so -called adequate terms cannot be established。It is just the effect of the early effect of waste clauses，instead of being able to restrict the role of itself。

　　bet365 Play online games