I'd like to start out by thanking rightwingmom52 for popping Capitalism and Freedom in the mail when I mentioned we did not have it at my campus library, despite my protests that I was a grown man with a job who had a budget for such things. Not only did she insist on sending me the book, she threw in The Road to Serfdom as a bonus. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you Ma'am.
On to business. Two weeks ago when I made my original post, JSobieski threw up a post with some advice regarding John Locke. Well, if you're still out there, I'd like to discuss that further. She (my Professor) brought up John Locke last night, and I feel like she subtly perverted what he said, and I'd like some help figuring out if I'm confused on the particular issue, or if she's doing what I think she's doing.
We were discussing the 3 natural rights, life, liberty, and property. She asked what he meant by property, and I said that it meant ownership of the proceeds from one's labor. She replied, "hmm. I'm not sure if that's...derivative, but what he definitely talks about is that there is no excuse to deny someone the basics." I haven't studied Locke since high school, and we did not actually read any of his original material at that time, but I seem to remember his second treatise talking extensively about property specifically being material and being created by labor, not that it means that the society one makes a social contract with owing you the basics.
Am I out of my mind? If so, please help me out, and if I'm not out of my mind, how best do I challenge this in discussion politely in our next class session?