Locke's Waste Restriction and His Strong Voluntarism

Locke Studies 6:127-141 (2006)
This paper argues that there is a conflict between two principles informing Locke’s political philosophy, namely his waste restriction and his strong voluntarism. Locke’s waste restriction is proposed as a necessary, enforceable restriction upon rightful private property holdings and it yields arguments to preserve and redistribute natural resources. Locke’s strong voluntarism is proposed as the liberal ideal of political obligations. It expresses Locke’s view that each individual has a natural political power, which can only be transferred to a political body through the individual’s voluntary, actual consent. On this view, the legitimacy of a political power is dependent upon its subjects’ actual consent to its authority. After briefly outlining these two ideas informing Locke’s conception, I argue that we cannot maintain both at the same time. Therefore, contemporary Lockeans must either derive restrictions upon private property concerned with preserving natural resources from other aspects of Locke’s theory or they must accept weak voluntarism as the ideal of political obligations. I argue that both alternatives pose significant problems for the Lockean project.
Keywords Locke  the waste restriction  natural executive right  strong voluntarism
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,201
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Mark D. Mathewson (2006). John Locke and the Problems of Moral Knowledge. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):509–526.
Struan Jacobs & Allan McNeish (1997). Locke, McCann, and Voluntarism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (4):349–362.
Paul J. Weithman (1993). Natural Law, Property, and Redistribution. Journal of Religious Ethics 21 (1):165 - 180.
Danny Frederick (2013). Doxastic Voluntarism: A Sceptical Defence. International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 3 (1):24-44.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

2 ( #746,525 of 1,940,956 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #457,978 of 1,940,956 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.