Property...Maybe a little too strong!!!

In John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, he discusses the matter of property with regards to the State of Nature. Lock makes the claim, that if one puts work (or labor) into something, than he/she deservingly so owns it. Now, while I am not a credited political theorist, I do feel that their are definitely some errors in this statement. 

Just like we put Socrates on trial for corrupting the youth, lets put Locke on trial as well!!!  In this scenario, he is being charged with corrupting the Political Science World. As head prosecutor, I will conduct my argument through a series of examples that will hopefully help the jury realize the flaws in Locke's theory on property. 

Just because "Snooki" works at The Shore Store, does that means that she owns it and that is her property?

                                 Is Snooki ready for that kind of responsibility? (Image from ru-crazy.com)

Are flight attendants, who undoubtedly work incredibly hard to make our flying experience great, entitled to the actual aircraft or airlines as property?
 

                             The plane seems just a little to big to be owned by her!!! (Image from blog.nj.com)

Moving on, however, Locke does make the valid assertion that one must put something in to gain something. The use of his term labor, which most people think of as work, is very loosely defined. Labor can represent money, just like when someone buys something it is now there property. It can be a toy, a loaf of bread, or even land. The United State's purchase of the Louisiana Purchase is a prime example of this notion.
 
While the topic of Pokemon has come up several times in lecture, I find it appropriate to use it as an example in this post. When Ash uses a pokeball to catch a pokemon, the pokemon is now his own. While the pokemon is property because of the fact that Ash indeed simply put in the "labor" to capture it, the new pokemkon does not belong to Pikachu who may have weakened the pokemon in battle. Pikachu put in the labor yet still doesn't own it. The point I am trying to make through this pokemon analogy is that just because someone puts work into something does not mean that he/she has the RIGHT to own it. At the end of the day, it is Ash's pokemon, not Pikachu's. Just like it is Danny's shore store, not Snooki's.  

Ash captures Pokemon, and it is now rightfully his property.

I guess all that I am trying to say is that Locke's claim is not completely invalid, but he makes it seem as if just because you put work into something means that you have the right to own it. While a lot of time you do put work into something that you own, it does not mean that this is always the case. Earning property my merit is more respectable than through connections, but both are legitimate and realistic ways to gain ownership.

(Edited on 10/12/2012 to address issues with formatting.)