The Origin of Property

The Origin of Property

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labor 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 labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labor something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. (On Property, Section 27)

Locke takes an etiological approach to understanding property. He begins his argument by accrediting God as the sole attributor of the abundance included in the natural world. The beginning of Locke’s argument establishes an understanding of nature that is similar to Mckibben’s separate natural realm that is untainted by the influences of humanity. As such Locke is concerned as to how it had come to be that these vast territories and aspects of nature had become the property of men. Locke comes to the conclusion that property is acquired when an individual’s labor is added to that object. For example, an apple that grows on a tree is owned by no one until it is picked by a farmer. Once the farmer has picked the apple the value of their labor has been added to the object and the apple becomes their property. Locke’s encouragement of men to attain property and utilize its abundance is a prospective that might be construed as crude under Aristotelian thought but encouraged under Baconian thought.

Locke’s ideas of ownership were novel to previous realms of political thought. Since Locke was concerned with the origin and preservation of personal property, his model for political and social organization embodied similar priorities. While Locke’s writings on the property are with concern to physical possessions they are also hold true to individual liberties. Therefore an effective Lockean government focuses on the protection of property as well as life and prosperity. Unlike other philosophers, such as Machiavelli, Locke opposes the absolute authority of men over others. The fundamental division between Lockean and Machiavellian schools of thought is evidence of either philosopher’s opposing understanding of the natural state of man and man’s natural rights. Where Machiavelli and other philosophers believe in a hostile natural man, Locke would describe a harmonious natural man whose autonomy and liberty should be protected rather than oppressed.

As such, Locke believed that no one individual had power over another. The force and cruelty that would be consistent with a Machiavellian social order would not be necessary within a Lockean political society. In the Lockean state of nature it is the responsibility of each individual to protect their own property. By creating a system by which people can best protect their own property by promoting the common good, harmonious living and the protection of man’s natural rights are preserved. Therefore very man who lives under a Lockean government is bound by social agreement that serves the general good and needs of society. People who live in a state of anarchy in which their property is not protected will willingly enter into an ordered political society based on Lockean principles whereby their property is protected. These concepts of social order and social contracts will be important in our future discussion of Rousseauian works.

Discussion Question: How is Locke’s explanation of property connected with political life? How use his understanding of the origins of property to expand into justifications for individual and natural rights? What is his understanding of the nature of man and how does property and government change this understanding?