Your name:

Reed Miller

Article # 15

Title of article: Whose Egg Is It, Really? Property Rights And

Distributive Justice
Authors name: Henry Cribbs
What is the thesis or main claim? (This should be a single
sentence, with a page number at the end)
However, I would rather avoid such difficulties by thinking of the
egg, for the moment, as mere property rather than as a potential
partridge, for even Mayzie herself uses the term stole rather than
birdnapped, indicating its a way for her to question property
rights, not parental rights. (pg 180) ???

Summarize the main argument, whether you agree or not.

Use your own words. (Not the topic, not the plot, the
argument)
The case of ownership over the egg in Horton Hatches an Egg can
be used to explore the question how should we decide who owns
what?. Locke argues that significant labor put into a part of
nature, a form of mixed labor, grants ownership over that part of
nature. However Lockes argument requires all parts of nature, in
the general commons, be used or exploited equitably. Locke
also argues that overuse of a resource does not entitle one to the
excess, and that the excess resources are not immediately
granted as property. Appropriating a neglected or excess resource
excludes the influence of prior labor on the right to ownership.
Locke considers money an acceptable way to accumulate excess
resources. Once money and market capitalism enter a system
labor no longer dictates the ownership over property and instead
concentrates wealth away from laborers. The policy implications
of capitalism require a veil of ignorance towards difference in the
population according to John Rawls. Questioning how resources

and wealth should be fairly distributed in a society leads us

toward a more just solution.
If the author mentions or quotes other people, what are
the arguments that they make that the author either uses
as support or in disagreement?
Cribbs uses John Lockes description of labor and property as the
basis for his initial exploration of property rights. Locke argues
that labor is fundamental to establishing ownership over property
of parts of nature. There are flaws with this broad definition like
Lockes idea that one should only take their fair share and that
money is often a substitute for labor. Cribbs refers to Marxism
briefly to describe an alternative approach to distributing wealth
outside of a free-market system. Returning to the free market
Cribbs uses Rawls veil of ignorance to argue for impartial
regulation of the free-market to ensure some degree of fair
distribution in a society.
How does the author draw conclusions from his/her
argument to the conclusion and overall thesis?
Cribbs offers no concrete thesis but argues generally that a fair
distribution of property should be attempted in a society. How
labor, mixed labor, and capitalism should interact is an ongoing
question and Cribbs concludes that continuing to question the
equitability of distribution is essential.
Are there any obvious problems with the article?
Cribss uses flaws in Lockes argument to transition to distributive
justice in the article, but does not offer contemporary
perspectives on property rights of establishing property rights.
Is this an article you would suggest to a friend to read on
this topic? Why or why not?