Theory of Property Rights in Chapter Five of The Second Treatise of Government
By: Scott Lynn
(Scott is an undergraduate student at the University of Toronto and received an A- for this paper for the PHLB17H3 class taught by professor Kelin Emmett.
In the book “Introduction to Political Theory”, John Hoffman and Paul Graham state that John Locke formed his theory of property rights in order to reconcile the differing philosophies of Christianity and capitalism during the Age of Enlightenment. I believe that Locke wants his readers to come to the conclusion that God himself allows for unlimited capital accumulation because it is in accordance with the state of nature which God created. Locke implies that unlimited capital accumulation is morally justified and even allowed by God. My position is that Locke provides sound reasoning to support this belief in regards to accumulating wealth by appropriating land directly through one’s own labor. However, he does not provide sufficient rationale for why it is morally justified to accumulate unlimited property through someone else’s labor.
Locke believes that men have created a society with unequal distribution of wealth simply by putting a value on gold and silver. Locke does not explicitly say that this is justified or fair, but merely that this arrangement is the natural outcome of men putting a value on gold and silver and tacitly agreeing in the use of money. In his own words: “This partage of things in an inequality of private possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value on gold and silver” (section 50). The language that Locke uses simply states that unequal distribution of wealth is made possible or practicable by men using money as a means of exchange. He does not argue convincingly in this passage that the seperation of have and have-nots is actually fair or justified and in accordance with Judeo-Christian values.
Nevertheless, let’s put this passage in the context of the entire chapter in order to determine if Locke provides sufficient rationale that unlimited property acquisition is justified. Locke starts out by saying that “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therin, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (section 26). He continues by saying that “Every man has a property in his own person: this no body 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” (section 27). It is apparent from these passages that Locke believes that all men are equal in the eyes of God. In the state of nature, there are no slaves or servants. God has given every man the right to claim property though his own toil and labor.
Locke then invites us to ponder the following question. Suppose a man nourishes himself with acorns that are picked up under an oak tree. When do the acorns become his property? Is it when the acorns are boiled, eaten, or digested? Locke argues convincingly here that it becomes his property when he first gathered them. He argues this point so persuasively that we are led to the conclusion that he is not simply talking about acorns but that everything in the nature that is removed from the commons becomes private property when there is any kind of agricultural, animal husbandry, hunting, or land improvement.
However there are three main stipulations that Locke puts forth to property acquisition. Because there is a limit to how much one man can eat and drink, Locke’s first rule is that one may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils. He states that: “Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy” (section 31). He explains in section 46 that it is permissible to take “as much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others” (section 31). This rule puts a cap on unlimited acquisition.
However, the invention of gold and silver which will not spoil or decay in the hands of the possessor like apples or acorns solves this problem. The reason for this is because commodities that can spoil can be traded for gold, silver, and money and vise versa. The argument appears to be that money, gold, and silver allows man to acquire unlimited resources and obey God’s rule at the same time.
Locke believes that men have created a society with unequal distribution of wealth simply by putting a value on gold and silver. Locke does not explicitly say that this is justified or fair, but merely that this arrangement is the natural outcome of men putting a value on gold and silver and tacitly agreeing in the use of money. In his own words: “This partage of things in an inequality of private possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value on gold and silver” (section 50). The language that Locke uses simply states that unequal distribution of wealth is made possible or practicable by men using money as a means of exchange. He does not argue convincingly in this passage that the seperation of have and have-nots is actually fair or justified and in accordance with Judeo-Christian values.
Nevertheless, let’s put this passage in the context of the entire chapter in order to determine if Locke provides sufficient rationale that unlimited property acquisition is justified. Locke starts out by saying that “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therin, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (section 26). He continues by saying that “Every man has a property in his own person: this no body 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” (section 27). It is apparent from these passages that Locke believes that all men are equal in the eyes of God. In the state of nature, there are no slaves or servants. God has given every man the right to claim property though his own toil and labor.
Locke then invites us to ponder the following question. Suppose a man nourishes himself with acorns that are picked up under an oak tree. When do the acorns become his property? Is it when the acorns are boiled, eaten, or digested? Locke argues convincingly here that it becomes his property when he first gathered them. He argues this point so persuasively that we are led to the conclusion that he is not simply talking about acorns but that everything in the nature that is removed from the commons becomes private property when there is any kind of agricultural, animal husbandry, hunting, or land improvement.
However there are three main stipulations that Locke puts forth to property acquisition. Because there is a limit to how much one man can eat and drink, Locke’s first rule is that one may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils. He states that: “Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy” (section 31). He explains in section 46 that it is permissible to take “as much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others” (section 31). This rule puts a cap on unlimited acquisition.
However, the invention of gold and silver which will not spoil or decay in the hands of the possessor like apples or acorns solves this problem. The reason for this is because commodities that can spoil can be traded for gold, silver, and money and vise versa. The argument appears to be that money, gold, and silver allows man to acquire unlimited resources and obey God’s rule at the same time.
The second restriction is that a man must leave “enough and as good” for others. This is not a problem because Locke believes natural resources and land are plentiful and there was more than enough for every person. Locke makes a reasonable argument that “No body could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst: and the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same“ (section 33). Locke explains that man would live in harmony if this rule was followed by all, since the world is overflowing in abundance.
He then goes about to prove that unlimited property acquisition is morally justified. The reasoning here is that because the bible states that “a man reaps what he sows” (NIV, Galatians 6:7), a man is entitled only to the fruits of his own labor. Some men are naturally more industrious and this leads naturally to inequality. It logically follows then that the limit to property acquisition is bounded only by the amount of labor that one is willing to put in.
However, to do this task, he has to prove that all wealth is generated as a result of labor by proving that land by itself is worthless until it is touched by labor that cultivates and improves it. Locke argues convincingly that it is the labor and not the land that produces value. In section 37 Locke writes eloquently: “In the wild woods and uncultivated waste of America, left to nature, without any improvement, tillage or husbandry, a thousand acres yield the needy and wretched inhabitans as much conveniences of life, as ten acres of equally fertile land do in Devonshire?” One can see that this theory still holds water in modern times if we compare the economic value of one acre of land in downtown Toronto with one acre of land in a remote village in Nunavut.
Locke’s argument is convincing and makes sense up to this point in time. However, his last rule is completely inconsistent with his entire argument. Locke’s third rule is that one may only appropriate property directly through one’s own labor. In Section 27 he writes about labour in the state of nature: “For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what is once joined to.” In section 28, Locke makes a glaring mistake when he writes that in the state of nature “the turfs my servant has cut… become my property.” Section 27 and section 28 are completely at odds with each other. According to the principles that Locke lays out in prior sections, his servant should own the turfs because his servant applied his own labor to it. Section 28 contradicts previous sections that state that one may only appropriate property through one’s own labor. In other words, Locke would have to cut the turfs himself in order to claim ownership of it. It is rather confusing because Locke has stated that the only legitimate source of property rights is based on one’s own labor in the state of nature.
He then goes about to prove that unlimited property acquisition is morally justified. The reasoning here is that because the bible states that “a man reaps what he sows” (NIV, Galatians 6:7), a man is entitled only to the fruits of his own labor. Some men are naturally more industrious and this leads naturally to inequality. It logically follows then that the limit to property acquisition is bounded only by the amount of labor that one is willing to put in.
However, to do this task, he has to prove that all wealth is generated as a result of labor by proving that land by itself is worthless until it is touched by labor that cultivates and improves it. Locke argues convincingly that it is the labor and not the land that produces value. In section 37 Locke writes eloquently: “In the wild woods and uncultivated waste of America, left to nature, without any improvement, tillage or husbandry, a thousand acres yield the needy and wretched inhabitans as much conveniences of life, as ten acres of equally fertile land do in Devonshire?” One can see that this theory still holds water in modern times if we compare the economic value of one acre of land in downtown Toronto with one acre of land in a remote village in Nunavut.
Locke’s argument is convincing and makes sense up to this point in time. However, his last rule is completely inconsistent with his entire argument. Locke’s third rule is that one may only appropriate property directly through one’s own labor. In Section 27 he writes about labour in the state of nature: “For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what is once joined to.” In section 28, Locke makes a glaring mistake when he writes that in the state of nature “the turfs my servant has cut… become my property.” Section 27 and section 28 are completely at odds with each other. According to the principles that Locke lays out in prior sections, his servant should own the turfs because his servant applied his own labor to it. Section 28 contradicts previous sections that state that one may only appropriate property through one’s own labor. In other words, Locke would have to cut the turfs himself in order to claim ownership of it. It is rather confusing because Locke has stated that the only legitimate source of property rights is based on one’s own labor in the state of nature.
Critical Analysis
This leads the reader to reason that in order for unlimited acquisition and resulting inequality to be morally justified, Locke must prove that God permits a class based society where some men are property owners because of inheritance and others are born to be wage laborers. Locke does not explain why God would allow such a class division to exist or why this is morally justified. Locke skillfully maneuvers around having to deal with this important issue and the reader is left asking how a class division can be justified by God when Locke clearly states that the world which “God hath given to men in common …belong to mankind in common” (section 25).
Harvard Professor Robert Nozick has challenged Locke’s claim that when a man mixes his labor with the commons it becomes his property. He attacks Locke’s arguments when he famously compared this to someone owning the sea by mixing tomato juice with it. (Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia New York: Basic Books)
Locke tries his best in Chapter five of “The Second Treatise of Government” to close the chasm between capitalism on one hand and Judeo-Christianity on the other. Without saying explicity, he gently nudges the reader to conclude that God himself has given permission for man to have unlimited property acquisition with the invention of money. Although he falls short in proving this, he produces a brilliant piece of philosophy in the process. Because Locke inherited large plots of farming lands and buildings in rural Somerset in England, he may have wanted to prove that unlimited property acquisition was morally justified. However, raised by puritan parents, he would have memorized the following verse from the bible: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (NIV, Matthew 6:19-21). It should be pointed out that even though a Judeo-Christian God is mentioned no less than fourteen times in Chapter five, Locke does not provide a solution to this apparent contradiction.
Harvard Professor Robert Nozick has challenged Locke’s claim that when a man mixes his labor with the commons it becomes his property. He attacks Locke’s arguments when he famously compared this to someone owning the sea by mixing tomato juice with it. (Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia New York: Basic Books)
Locke tries his best in Chapter five of “The Second Treatise of Government” to close the chasm between capitalism on one hand and Judeo-Christianity on the other. Without saying explicity, he gently nudges the reader to conclude that God himself has given permission for man to have unlimited property acquisition with the invention of money. Although he falls short in proving this, he produces a brilliant piece of philosophy in the process. Because Locke inherited large plots of farming lands and buildings in rural Somerset in England, he may have wanted to prove that unlimited property acquisition was morally justified. However, raised by puritan parents, he would have memorized the following verse from the bible: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (NIV, Matthew 6:19-21). It should be pointed out that even though a Judeo-Christian God is mentioned no less than fourteen times in Chapter five, Locke does not provide a solution to this apparent contradiction.
