John Locke on Property

Free, full text here: The Project Gutenberg eBook of Second Treatise Of Government, by John Locke

Introduction

This writing gives a simplified, section-by-section summary of Chapter. V. Of Property. from Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. The summary is designed for both newcomers and those who would like a quick refresher. You may skip to the summary but first this introduction will provide useful context.

John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher and revolutionary who was an influential supporter of the Glorious Revolution wherein King James II was overthrown. His Second Treatise of Civil Government (published 1698) details Locke’s political philosophy for legitimate governance and a civil society rooted in natural rights and social contract theory. This was a rebuttal to monarchists, in particular Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes claimed that life in a state of nature was brutish, short, and a constant state of war and so advocated for rule by an absolute sovereign.

Locke asserts that life in a state of nature was a state of perfect freedom and equality where people have natural rights to life, liberty, health, and property. Locke’s Second Treatise on Government has become a foundational text in liberalism and has shaped Western governance and individual rights. Chapter. V. Of Property focuses on property rights and has had major influence on the development of capitalism and private ownership.

Locke writes:

“TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”

“A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection”

While Locke’s political philosophy was revolutionary and liberatory for its time, his work is marred by the ethical shortcomings of his time. Locke was a significant investor in the Royal African Company which traded in slavery. Additionally, his philosophy excluded indigenous peoples since, by his estimation, their relationship with the land wasn’t legitimate labor. Lastly, Locke’s work takes a patriarchal lens and largely omits women.

Main Thesis

In chapter five, Locke argues that people come to acquire property rights by “mixing their labour” with natural resources because people in a state of nature would starve if they required the consent of everyone. Locke includes two provisos: First, that “there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” And second, that the person uses the resource before it spoils.

Summary: Chapter. V. Of Property.

Section 25

Both natural reason and God’s revelation explain that the Earth belongs to humans collectively. But Locke will aim to explain how people can have individual property rights without collective agreements.

But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners.

Section 26

God gave the world to all humankind and gave them reason to make the best of it for their own support and comfort. But for them to be of use to any particular person, there must be some means by which individuals can claim ownership.

Section 27

Every person has exclusive property rights to their own body as well as the work produced by its labor. When a person uses something from nature they have “mixed” their labor with it and so have made it theirs— as long as enough of that resource remains for others.

…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. … for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, 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.

Section 28

If someone gathers and eats acorns or apples from nature, no one would deny they belong to them. But when exactly did they become their property? When digested? When ate? When boiled? When brought home? When picked up? If the initial gathering didn’t establish ownership, nothing else could. If it was necessary to first get consent from everyone, people would starve.

Section 29

If someone drew water from a stream into a pitcher, then it becomes theirs by that labor.

Section 30

If an “Indian” put effort into killing a deer, it becomes theirs. This natural law applies even in “civilized” parts of the world with property laws. For example, if someone is hunting a hare, it belongs to them for the duration of the chase.

A product of his time: “Indian” and “civilized”
The terms “Indian” and “civilized” were intentionally included in scare quotes here to highlight the Eurocentric and colonial mentality of Locke and his contemporaries. This serves to inform the reader that this problematic assumed cultural superiority are woven into Locke’s philosophy.

Section 31

Someone might argue that, under this reasoning, someone could take as much as they want. But Locke asserts people should only take as much as they can make use of before it spoils. Taking more than your fair share is akin to stealing form the community. Given how plentiful natural resources are, there should be little disagreement over property established this way.

Section 32

Property rights apply similarly to land itself: land belongs to someone as much they can productively cultivate. When God gave the world to all mankind, he commanded them to labor and manage the Earth.

Section 33

This claiming of land doesn’t deprive others as long as there’s enough land of similar quality left for others. For example, if someone drinks from a river, there’s still plenty good enough left for others.

Section 34

God gave the world for the use of the “industrious and rational” so that they may benefit from it. Anyone who complains about another’s labor-based ownership wants to unfairly benefit from another’s work.

Section 35

In places like England where there’s government and commerce, land can’t be claimed without the consent of everyone. But that doesn’t apply to the “great common of the world” where God’s law and basic needs encourage labor.

Section 36

Even as the world’s population expands, there’s plenty of land for everyone to partake in labor-based property rights without conflict. This is evidenced by the fact that in Spain people are permitted to cultivate unused land. Even with the introduction of money and legal agreements, this still holds.

Section 37

When someone cultivates land, they actually create more resources, thereby benefiting society. For example, someone who cultivates ten acres of land can be said to be giving 10 to 100 times more to society than if that same land had gone uncultivated. Before the appropriation of land, if someone wasted what they claimed, like letting food rot, they violated natural law and stole from their neighbor.

…he who appropriates land to himself by his labour, does not lesson, but increase the common stock of mankind: for the provisions serving to the support of human life, produced by one acre of enclosed and cultivated land, are (to speak much within compass) ten times more than those which are yielded by an acre of land of an equal richness lying waste in common.

Section 38

The same rules applied to land as well: If grass rotted or planted fruit perished, then this was wasteful and the land could therefore be claimed by others. As societies formed, property laws were established to delineate ownership and address conflicts.

Section 39

So, we see how labor could give men doubtless claim to property.

Section 40

Labor, for example agriculture, is what gives land value. In fact, roughly 90-99% of the value from the earth’s products comes from labor.

Section 41

The state of American nations illustrate this. They are rich in land but, for lack of labor, don’t derive even “one-hundredth” of the conveniences we do.

Section 42

Labor transforms basic resources like acorns, water, and leaves into more valuable commodities like bread, wine, and clothing. So, undeveloped land is basically wasteful. The value of labor is much more valuable to society than having large territorial domain and a wise government would establish laws to encourage this industry.

Section 43

An acre of fertile land in America is inherently as valuable as an acre in England. Yet “the benefit mankind receives from the one in a year is worth 51. and from the other possibly not worth a penny”. The labor involved isn’t just the farmer’s but includes the collective effort of those who made the tools, prepared the resources, and even shipped necessary items. If you tried to list everything that labor contributed to making a loaf of bread, the list would be nearly impossible to account for.

Labor Theory of Value
Before it was formally formulated, Locke was basically making a case for the labory theory of value. The labor theory of value claims that the primary value of a good is determined by the amount of labor invested into its production.

Section 44

When someone improved something through arts or invention, that creation is considered their personal property, not the community’s.

Section 45

In some parts of the world where populations grew, money was utilized, and land became more scarce, communities formed and set their own boundaries and internal laws to regulate property, reinforcing what labor had initially started. When different communities or nations formed agreements, they essentially forfeited their natural claims to each other’s lands. Despite these social contracts, there are still areas that lie unclaimed and remain common because the people there have not adopted the use of money.

Section 46

Things essential to life are usually perishable. On the other hand, things like gold, silver, and diamond are valuable by agreement. Anyone who gathered perishables such as acorns or apples made them theirs by their labor. If they spoiled under their ownership, then they foolishly and dishonestly hoarded more than their fair share and robbed others. However, if they bartered them for more durable good or gave them away before they perished, then they made use of them and caused no harm to the communal pool. So if they exchanged nuts for metal, or sheep for shells, or wool for a diamond, then they didn’t waste resources and infringe on others rights.

He that gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples, had thereby a property in them, they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only to look, that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others. And indeed it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of. If he gave away a part to any body else, so that it perished not uselesly in his possession, these he also made use of. And if he also bartered away plums, that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted not the common stock; destroyed no part of the portion of goods that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselesly in his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its colour; or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him all his life he invaded not the right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the perishing of any thing uselesly in it.

Section 47

Money emerged as a durable medium of exchange, enabling people to trade perishable goods for something that won’t spoil.

Section 48

People who were more industrious naturally owned more stuff than others. So money was invented to help them continue to grow their property.

Imagine an isolated island with plenty of resources and a hundred families but nothing on the island was a suitable medium of money. What reason would anyone hoard resources? It wouldn’t even be worth it to claim thousands of acres of fertile land because they couldn’t exchange products for money.

Section 49

So in the beginning of the world, everywhere was like America because money hadn’t been invented. Once money is available, you’ll start to see people enlarge their possessions.

Section 50

Gold and silver have limited utility for basic human needs but they don’t spoil and attain value through mutual societal consent. By this social agreement, people have found a way to fairly own more land than they could ever directly use. This innovation allows inequality in ownership to exist without any formal societal compact. Within governments, laws and constitutions further regulate property rights.

…men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found out, a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any one; these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands of the possessor. 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, and tacitly agreeing in the use of money: for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.

Locke on inequality
Here, Locke is laying the groundwork for liberal democracy and capitalism. By offering a moral and logical basis for private ownership, he’s also subtly critiquing other forms of government and societal organization that don’t respect individual property rights.

During Locke’s time, the divine right of kings was the prevailing justification for why some people had lots, and others had little. Locke offered an alternative: people could own things because they worked for it. It was a radically democratic idea at the time.

Section 51

Thus, it’s easy to see how labor could entitle people to property rights from nature. Since people had a right to the fruits of their labor, there was no temptation to take more than they could use. And there was no reason to fight about who owns what because, by this dynamic, this clearly delineated ownership. Additionally, it was useless and dishonest to hoard resources.