Verified answer

The sentence seems to be missing a verb or phrase (between "need" and "when"). But I gather the sense of it is the following:

On the one hand, a society is unjust if it does not provide for the poor.

On the other hand, society should respect private property.

But our society provides for the poor by levying taxes on others, and the money you spend on taxes comes from your private property.

So you are being asked to resond to the following dilemma : we either respect private property (no taxes!) and are this unjust by not providing for the poor, or we provide for the poor and violate our respect for private property.

From the wording of the question (which as I say, I think is garbled), it is hard to tell whether you are being asked how John Locke resolves this apparent contradiction or whether you are to give your own analysis of it using Locke's principles.

Oh boy, in Michigan? You've bought your paintings reduce out for ya. Michigan is a kind of states wherein I do not suppose there may be any threat of homosexual marriage being legalized (equal as my state of Georgia). Most humans are very conservative and conventional there. No subject what you assert, they'll argue in opposition to it, notably Catholics. One motive to legalize it could be to advertise monogamy and balance that is perfect for homosexual couples elevating youngsters. Also, it will not have any final result on conventional marriages. It will deliver in cash to the state, it has introduced thousands into California's financial system. The major motive homosexual marriage is adversarial is due to the fact that of devout church ideals, and there's intended to be a separation of church and state! The govt and faith must now not combine, this nation is meant to be headquartered at the notion of freedom of speech and faith. Everyone has the correct to lifestyles, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Marrying your loved one brings happiness. I do not see a obstacle with 2 consenting adults in love getting married.