John Locke: Property Rights Essay, Research Paper

John Locke: Property Rights

Perhaps one of, if not the, most historically influential political

thinkers of the western world was John Locke. John Locke, the man who initiated

what is now known as British Empiricism, is also considered highly influential

in establishing grounds, theoretically at least, for the constitution of the

United States of America. The basis for understanding Locke is that he sees

all people as having natural God given rights. As God’s creations, this

denotes a certain equality, at least in an abstract sense. This religious back

drop acts as a the foundation for all of Locke’s theories, including his

theories of individuality, private property, and the state. The reader will be

shown how and why people have a natural right to property and the impact this

has on the sovereign, as well as the extent of this impact.

Locke was a micro based ideologist. He believed that humans were

autonomous individuals who, although lived in a social setting, could not be

articulated as a herd or social animal. Locke believed person to stand for,

?… a thinking, intelligent being, that has

reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking

thing in different times and places, which it only does by that consciousness

which is inseparable from thinking.? This ability to reflect, think, and

reason intelligibly is one of the many gifts from God and is that gift which

separates us from the realm of the beast. The ability to reason and reflect,

although universal, acts as an explanation for individuality. All reason and

reflection is based on personal experience and reference. Personal experience

must be completely individual as no one can experience anything quite the same

as another.

This leads to determining why Locke theorized that all humans, speaking

patriarchially with respect to the time ?why all men,? have a natural right to

property. Every man is a creation of God’s, and as such is endowed with certain

individual abilities and characteristics as gifts from God. Not being able to

know God’s exact wishes for man, Locke believed that all men have an obligation

to develop and caress these gifts. In essence, each man was in charge of his own

body and what was done with his body. Of course, for Locke, each man would do

the reasonable thing and develop his natural skills and potentials to the best

of his abilities, in the service of God.

The belief in God given abilities and the obligations that follow are

not totally deterministic. Man, endowed with reason, could choose not to

develop these abilities. Having the ability to choose the development of his

potential, each man is responsible for that potential and consequently is

responsible for his own body. The development, or lack therein, is a

consequence of individual motivation and is manifested through labor.

In keeping with the theory of one’s body is one’s own, a man’s property

can be explained in terms of the quantifying forces of his labors. Physical

labor or exercisation of his mind, to produce fruits for this person’s labor,

is then his own property. Locke believed that one did not need the consent of a

sovereign, as far as property was concerned, because it is the melding of

labor and nature that makes anything owned. Yolton articulates this when he

states, ?(b)y mixing my work, my energy with some object, (nature), I

particulise that object, it’s commonness becomes particular? Locke believed

that as long as there was plenty for others, consent was pointless, irrelevant

and would merely be an overzealous exercision of power. Pointless because as

long as there was more for others in the common store, one was not infringing on

another’s natural rights. Irrelevant because property production or the use of

labor was completely individualistic and one should not be able to control

another’s labor as it is an infringement on their natural rights.

There are however limits, as far as property and labor are concerned.

One limit is that of non destruction. God did not create anything for man to

destroy. The amount produced by any man should be kept in check by his level of

destruction. For example, there is a big difference between the cutting of one

or a few trees and the harvesting of an entire forest. Yolton explicates this

by stating that, ?… specific rights comes in conjunction with this

restriction. Since ?Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy,’ the

property making function of man’s activities ought to be curbed at the point of

spoilage. If my acquisition spoils, I offend against the law of nature, since I

have, in the beginning, ?no Right, further than’ my use. What is useful and is

used has value and the person who uses them a right to them. The same rules

are cited for land as for the produce of land.?

The making of currency as an unspoilable property and medium for

exchange seems to have by-passed this limit all together. Inequality becomes

rampant and as such an authority is needed to protect a man’s property and the

social peace. With the advent of money as unspoilable property, certain

inequalities amoungst men would develop. Those with less start to feel cheated

and used. This is very dangerous for those with more, because with these

inequalities, comes the danger of theft, or injury to property or body. It is

for this reason that people enter into a social contract and appoint a soveriegn.

The sovereign has the ability to protect those whose property is in danger, and

will do so through the passing and enforcing of laws. In this way not only is a

man’s property protected, but a state of peace is maintained as well.

Locke not only believed in one individual’s right to property, but every

individual’s right to property. Since every person is a creation of God’s, and

it must be God’s wish that we serve him through the abilities that he’s given us,

to interfere with a man and his labor, or the consequence of his labor, that is,

his property, would be to interfere with God’s wishes. It is here that we begin

to see the limits of men as well as the limits of the soveriegn. After all, how

anyone interfere with the wishes of God?

Locke believed that the power for social control must come from the

sovereign. This sovereign is responsible to the will of the people, but has a

protective authority, governing both over land and people. Locke believed that

if a body of people, that is a community of people, chose to live and

interrelate amongst each other, they must choose to live by a greater force,

that is they must enter into a social contract. This force was the power of the

majority manifested through the creation of a sovereign. Problems can arise,

when individuals cannot agree. For this reason there must be a ruler and

government to decide disagreements, make and enforce laws, and govern man.

The enforcement of rules is not as absolute as it may sound. Even with

the existence of a limited monarchy, man retains his individual and God given

rights. As such, the sovereign, had no right to aquire or take away the

property of another. If he did so he would be going against, God, the people,

and all that is natural. The extent of the services of the existing sovereign

is to govern over, protect, and enforce the laws of the people. Locke believed

that the role of the sovereign and his authority is in serving the people and

that there must not be parental, that is absolute authority. Yolton explains

this like so, ?If royal authority is derived from parental authority … there

would be as many kings as fathers… from parental power it necessarily follows

either that that all fathers have royal authority – in which case a

contradiction arises – no one has royal authority.? In this way Locke is seen

as a man who wants to limit the power of the sovereign over the individual.

Locke believed that the sovereign, created out of the need for the protection of

individual rights, that is, out of the need for protection of the privacy of

property, could not manifest itself publicly through excessive social control.

Perhaps Locke’s idea is better explained this way. ?From privacy of possession,

publicity of sovereignty does not follow…`no Man could ever have a just Power

over the life of another, by Right of property in Land or possessions’? This,

of course, would include the man of sovereignty and the men of government.

Property sets the limit of sovereignty, in that no man has just power over

another or another’s property. This right comes directly from God, because it

is a God given right that a man should gain property through labor. This also

sets the tone of the role of government, that of servitude instead of command.

Locke believed that civil society existed to free individuals from the

insecurity of the state of nature. He thought that men united voluntarily in a

concerted effort of preserving and protecting life, liberty, and estate. Here

again we see the importance of property. Government within limits can work

beneficially for all of man kind. This means that a sovereign would be

necessary for the preservation of lives, the promotion of freedom, and the

protection of estate. Locke is quite adamant about the preservation of

individual freedom which Aaron describes as ?need(ing) to be jealously

preserved.?

This right to the property produced through labor is an inalienable

right that each and every individual has. Even the soveriegn has no right to

interfere with or take away a man’s property. This is the true limit of any man

or governing body.

Locke favored a limited monarchy. This is an elected legislative

assembly and a monarch that have the power to direct the commonwealth to

preserve the community and it’s members and their rights. Locke believed that

people were the absolute sovereign, and that if the appointed sovereign abused

his authority the people would have the right to dissolve the government. This

right of the people reinforces the limitations of the sovereign, while enforcing

the accountability of the sovereign. It is in this sense that the community or

the aggregation of individuality, retains power over the sovereign and in

essence limits it’s power. This is the extent of the limitation of authority of

the sovereign. The sovereign is a servant of the people, that has limited power

only as long as the majority allows it to have power. It was Locke’s intent

that the state was made for the individual and that the sovereign be used as a

protective instrument for the good of the individual.

Locke’s ideas of property are based on God given rights. Each person

has been given a body, with certain abilities and potentials, to use by God.

The use of this body is called labor and its product is called property. Since

everyone has a body and a level of potential everyone is capable of producing

property. The purpose of the sovereign is to protect the individuals right to

property and their property. The sovereign is limited in it’s power and

authority and does not have the right to take or interfere with any man’s

property, since to do so would be an interference with the right’s of man as

given by God. It was Locke’s hope that with such an ideology behind a people

and their government that they might attain and retain Locke’s version of the

good life, that is life, liberty, and most importantly estate.

Bibliography:

Aaron, Richard, John Locke, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1963.

Bowie, James, Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, MacMillan

Publishing, New York, 1964.

Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford University Press,

London, 1975.

Magill, Frank, Masterpieces of World Philosophy, Harper and Row, New York, 1961.

O’Connor, D.J., John Locke, Pelican Books, London, 1952.

Squadrito, Kathleen, Locke’s Theory of Sensitive Knowledge, University Press of

America, Washington, 1978.

Yolton, J.W., Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 1970.

33c