Pokémon: Locke Version

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge Marc Cohen for inadvertently giving me motivation to write about Pokémon. His post touched on it, which made me ultimately decide to devote the following post to it.
-----------
My childhood was awesome. How awesome? Well, I own nearly every Pokémon video game that's out there, and have accumulated hours upon hours of gameplay (280 hours in Ruby version; about twelve days?!). I unconsciously whittled away my time watching the TV show whenever I could. Yeah yeah, I know. I find it only suiting that, in discussing something as serious as political theory, we put it in more popular, interesting terms, to make clearer sense of it. John Locke's explanation of the concept of property has many different facets, and many of them I find very relatable to Pokémon. I'd like to focus on a few of the characteristics we've discussed in Lecture, namely:

~

1. We own our bodies. Through labor, we are able to make other things our property.

~

2. Property is a claim against other people about a right to the continued use, possession and disposal of some object, whether such object is currently in the possession of or in use by the owner or not.

~

3. The question of over-accumulation of property

There have been questions floating around about whether slavery is a justifiable cause for making something our property. Were slaveowners, who appointed labor, entitled to the final product, produced by his slaves' labor? Likewise, are Pokémon trainers entitled to own other Pokémon, even though their current Pokémon are the ones who did all of the hard work in the process of capturing it?

"The Hardest Decision of Your Childhood"
http://cheatcollection.com/wp-content/uploads/mvbthumbs/img_13088_
pokemon-blue-walkthrough-part-0-choose-my-starter.jpg

If you've played one of the original Pokémon video games before, think back. Remember receiving your starter? Was it a Charmander? Squirtle? Bulbasaur? Regardless, I would like to assume you spent the rest of the game building your team around that one, yeah? At least for me, my teams' centerpieces were always the starters. Now, let's see. We take our first walk into the tall grass, and boom, a wild Pidgey. Sweet, let me just sic my faithful Pokémon on it, weaken it to the point of almost fainting, and encapsulate it into a ball that I'll keep on my belt. Sound ridiculous? Maybe so. Still, once it's in that ball, it's your property now.
Debate can arise from this silly concept; why do we, as trainers, have the right to this creature?! Our Pokémon's hands (and thundershocks, vine-whips, and sleep-powders) allowed for us to take our action (simply tossing a Pokéball) and make it... ours? That's not very fair, is it?

Says Locke in his Second Treatise of Government,

"...every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."

So, we did put the work of our hands into this battle (commanding our Pokémon, tossing the Pokéball), so we're entitled to it, right? Maybe not yet, but let's look a little further. 
In the cartoon, the protagonist of the series (Ash), upon turning the tender age of 10, was allowed to partake on his own journey. He was promised a Pokémon to get him started; in this case, a disobedient Pikachu. As their friendship grew, we saw him defy the odds by beating the world's best trainers and capturing many other Pokémon for his team. One could justify this kind of cartoon slavery by claiming that the bond he shared with his Pikachu formed somewhat of an extension of self. The work Pikachu did in battle is reflective of the work Ash put into caring and raising the Pikachu. So, when looking at it this way, it's justifiable for Ash to "own" all of these Pokémon he kind-of-sort-of-brutally removed out of the state of nature.
--

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9730/sekkacity.jpg

In the video games, you frequently come across little Pokéballs lying in the grass. They contain various items, like potions, various power-ups, and new moves you can teach to your Pokémon. Either someone is really kind, dropping helpful things along the way to get you through your quest, or, it's just a video game and that's how they designed it. Either way, this is an interesting aspect. We're accustomed to buying groceries at grocery stores and our clothes at clothing stores, much like in Pokémon you can buy some of these items in each town. Once you get it, it's yours. You removed it from this grass patch, or you paid for it (money, Locke later attends to). Regardless, this is another example of the idea of property found in Pokémon.

http://t0ak.roblox.com/9116852c945eb6a2ca0b1ae4f7b39006

Remember this? You've beaten Brock, and have received the first of eight badges leading up to becoming the Pokémon champion. Pretty cool, eh? Let's think of what Locke said, once more:
"Property is a claim against other people about a right to the continued use, possession and disposal of some object, whether such object is currently in the possession of or in use by the owner or not."
What's relevant about this passage is that, past putting labor into the battle to acquire this badge, certifying you've won the battle, you acquire the claim against other people about the right to possession of the badge. It's yours! To elaborate even further, you could very well (logistically) lose the badge at some point (although it never happens), but if you were to go back to the same building in which you won the battle, the statue at the front would read your name as one of the few who have accomplished the feat. This kind of parallels what Locke says. You earned it, it's yours, you can claim it as yours, and you have the right to the continued use of this badge throughout your journey.

---

Finally, I would like to quickly attack (no pun intended) the question of over-accumulation and draw an example from, you guessed it, Pokémon. 

"...by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire a propriety in them: but if they perished, in his possession, without their due use; if the fruits rotted, or the venison putrified, before he could spend it, he offended against the common law of nature, and was liable to be punished; he invaded his neighbour's share, for he had no right, farther than his use called for any of them..." (Locke)

Team Rocket is a crime-driven cult in this series, bent on world domination and endless wealth via obtaining the world's rarest and most valuable Pokémon. This is a problem. They don't have the right to them! My argument could be perceived as hypocritical; didn't Rocket take the Pokémon, (occasionally) out of the state of nature, with their labor, making them rightfully theirs? Maybe; however, Locke, in the aforementioned passage, speaks to the concept of spoilage. If Team Rocket invaded their neighbor's share, which they always intend to do by stealing, they are liable to be punished. Their acts are not just by Locke's standards. 

"Meeeowth, that's... not right"
[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZXsDbsvmgco/TFpUrPHW3mI/
AAAAAAAAAuI/tq_OW5ce2Nc/s1600/meowth.jpg]

~~~

The Pokémon series is among many other modern topics which can be related back to political theories. There is value in drawing these parallels; we can attain a better sense of rather complex ideas, and have some fun doing it. Cuz, you know, Gotta Understand 'Em All, am I right? 

Thoughts?