Do go over to my brother’s blog, Mischievous Constructions, to read Enid Blyton’s opinions about the Daily Mail, as published in the TV Times in 1955. If you haven’t already, that is.
At least half-a-dozen at least semi-regular readers of the Stoa are interested in this kind of thing, so here’s a chunk of something I’ve been reading in the Bodleian just now. It’s Thomas Rutherforth of St John’s College, Cambridge, lecturing on Locke’s account of property acquisition, and published as his Institutes of Natural Law, 1754, vol.1, chapter 3, Â§X, pp.50-2, and with the obvious typo silently corrected:
[p.50] “Mr. Lock agrees with Grotius, that occupancy is the foundation of private property. But then he does not consider occupancy in the same light, that Grotius considers it, as a tacit agreement between the joynt owners of the common stock and the future proprietor. In his opinion things, which originally belonged to all mankind in common, became the property of the first occupant; because, as he has a property in his own person, and consequently in the labour of his body, or in the work of his hands, by removing any thing out of the state, in which nature placed it, he has mixed his own labour or a personal act of his own with it; and by thus joyning to it something, which is his own, he makes it his property. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer; no man, but he, can have a right to what that is once joyned to; at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others. Thus, whilst he agrees with Grotius, in words, they differ widely from one another, when the sense of their words is explaned.”I design to examine at large his application of what is here advanced. But before we do that, let us stop a while, and enquire, whether his first principles are true. – As every man has a property in his own person; the labour of his body and the work of his hands [p.51] are properly his. – Now the labour of a mans body, or the work of his hands, may mean either the personal act of working, or the effect which is produced by that act. In the first sense it must be allowed, that a mans labour is properly his own; he has a right to exert his strength in what manner he pleases, where he is under no restraint of law. But it does not follow from hence, that the effect of his labouring, or that the work of his hands, in the other sense of these words, must likewise be properly his own. He has, you may say, mixed his own labour with what he removes out of that state, in which nature had left it: but will you conclude, that by thus joyning to it his act of working, he has made it his own? In order to strengthen such a conclusion it would be necessary to shew, that the labour of one man can overrule or set aside the right of others. If I knowingly employ myself, in working upon the materials of my neighbour; however I may have mixed a personal act, which is my own, with his property; this will never give me a reasonable claim to his materials. You may urge, that the cases are not parallel; because the materials, now in question, are not the property of any one; and consequently, that, by working in such materials, we may gain property in them; though we could not gain it, by the like act, where the materials were appropriated before. But the cases are parallel, as far as the point before us requires. It is allowed, that the materials do not belong to any person by an exclusive right of property; but then they belong to all mankind of common right. And if mixing my labour with the materials of an individual will not make these materials mine, in opposition to his exclusive right, I know not [p.52] how any act of the same kind, or the mixing my labour with materials, which belong to all mankind, should make them mine, in opposition to their common right. As setting aside the right of an individual, without his consent, is an injury to him; so setting aside the common claim of mankind, without their consent, is an injury to them: and if an injury cannot be the foundation of a right in one case; it will not be very easy to prove, that a like injury may be the foundation of a right in the other case.”
There’s more of this kind of thing if people want it, but I doubt you do.
Why have I not heard of the Cornerstone group before? They sound like splendid nutjobs. Is there a membership list anywhere?
UPDATE [3pm]: In answer to the last question, yes, there is! (Thanks, Mike, in the comments.) A pdf available through Edward Leigh’s website names the “supporters” of Cornerstone as Tory MPs Brian Binley, Peter Bone, Julian Brazier, Douglas Carswell, William Cash, Christopher Chope, Robert Goodwill, John Hayes, Edward Leigh, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Owen Patterson, Andrew Rosindell, Lee Scott, Andrew Selous, Desmond Swayne and Angela Watkinson. I don’t know much about aby of these, except I vaguely remember that Cash and Leigh are odious, and that Rosindell’s got a nasty dog and very right-wing opinions indeed, but if anyone’s got anything to say about any of the others, do fire away in the comments.
UPDATE [6.45pm]: It’s too exciting: there’s a Cornerstone blog, which has an even longer list of supporters down the right-hand side. IDS! Gerald Howarth! Definitely one to watch, and to giggle over. And people seem to be muttering about the possibility of Edward Leigh challenging for the leadership, which is even more comic than the prospect of Liam Fox leading HM’s LO.
It’s Labour Party Conference week, so here’s Andromache earlier this evening, ignoring last week’s Tribune in order to concentrate on dealing with a small green toy mouse…
Breaking with TKB tradition, here’s a picture of Enkidu from the back catalogue. This picture was taken two weeks ago, but captures his Determined Expression pretty well:
Harry, the keystone in the arch of British political blogging, bows out.
Over at the BBC Magazine. [Thanks, K.]
UPDATE [3.20pm]: regardless of how many people have heard of them, do we have any reliable stats about the relative numbers of bloggers and doggers in the UK? Or about the percentages of doggers who blog and bloggers who dog? Enquiring minds want to know.
With hindsight, why didn’t Michael Howard propose a new electoral system that gave the party in the country a bit-part in the election? If he needed 2/3 of his constitutional college (or whatever it’s called), and if that was full – or even just one-third full – of the kind of people who think that the party in the country is the right kind of body to make decisions of this kind (IDS!), then why didn’t he invent a new system which didn’t freeze them out altogether. Even a simple reversal of the current system (party members vote by Alternative Vote for a list of candidates; MPs ballot between the to two) would have been preferable to the current system, surely?
If this handy page is to be believed, exactly half — 99 out of 198 (hmm, maybe there are 199; not sure) — of Tory MPs have declared a preference for the leadership race. Presumably the David Davis strategy is to find the dozen extra pledges he needs to guarantee an appearance in the membership vote, and then – for every extra vote he finds – tells one of his other supporters to vote for, say, Liam Fox, to try to ensure that his opponent in the run-off is even less credible as leader than he is.
Now that the Tories have voted to retain their ridiculous system for electing a new leader, is it time for Iain Duncan Smith to enter the race and reclaim his crown?
According to the BBC, “Ministers had said vending machines could be excluded from a crackdown [on junkfood in schools], but they will now be banned from stocking sweets, crisps and high-sugar drinks.” So what will they vend? (I’m assuming they don’t dispense condoms or cigarettes.)