John Locke’s Views on Property and Liberty, as Outlined in His Second Treatise of Government

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions (Locke, Ch. 2, Section 6).

John Locke was perhaps one of the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke discusses the move from a state of nature and perfect freedom to a then governed society in which authority is given to a legislative and executive power. His major ideas included liberalism and capitalism, state of nature, state of war and the desire to protect one’s property.

John Locke defends the right to private property in Second Treatise of Government by transforming Biblical principles into Capitalist principles. Locke explores nine steps that stem from the Book of Genesis to explain “in a positive way how men could come to own various particular parts of something that God gave to mankind in common” (Locke 11). Locke believes that the unnatural inequality is perfectly acceptable. because he notes that some people work harder than others so they deserve more. The only way to ensure his argument is to guarantee that private property is secured by divinity, otherwise men can give and take away property freely, which includes the sovereign.

In Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, he defines his view of private property. He states that the earth belongs to all men in common,

Locke's Explanation of Creation, Value and Protection of Property ‘The great and chief end... of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and

In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke creates an argument that details how individuals attain private property and how some can end up with more property than others. He attempts to justify the resulting economic inequality, but is unsuccessful, failing to address many of the problematic issues that arise from his claim.

John Locke gives this very well thought out way of explaining how people are born with the right to take ownership of the fruits of the earth. Everyone comes to having a right to all the fruits of the earth because we are all born equal. That being said, everyone owns only their own person, and we are to be considered as property. Therefore if we own our own person and everything that we entail to be, we also would own our own labor and work of our hands. What makes property our own is when we work with the state of nature and everything that has been provided from God through the state of nature. We do not earn the right to ownership simply because we do more work than someone else, but because through our work we have mixed the state of nature with ourselves making it part of our property. However as there are rights to the property, there are also limitations based on how much we can use or own. As a community living together in the state of nature we must leave a fair and equally prosperous amount to our fellow people. If this limitation is not in place some people would not ever have the opportunity to own property because the strongest and the smartest would be able to tend to the land better than them. Another limitation placed on this theory is that you only have the right to own what you can tend to. This means that if you own property that you cannot properly tend to and some of the land becomes unfertile you have taken property that is not beneficial to you or

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, two philosophers with differing opinions concerning the concept of private property. Rousseau believes that from the state of nature, private property came about, naturally transcending the human situation into a civil society and at the same time acting as the starting point of inequality amongst individuals. Locke on the other hand argues that private property acts as one of the fundamental, inalienable moral rights that all humans are entitled to. Their arguments clearly differ on this basic issue. This essay will discuss how the further differences between Locke and Rousseau lead from this basic fundamental difference focusing on the acquisition of property and human rights.

	One of Locke’s central themes is the distribution of property. In a state of natural abundance "all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common" (page 18). In this situation the only thing man naturally owns is "his own person. This no body has any right to but himself" (page 18). Therefore, man is in a way equal, however it is an imperfect equality. "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" (page 18). Therefore, everything belongs to mankind in general, until a man decides to take it upon himself to acquire something from its pure state in nature, and since he has to work to achieve this, the fruits of the labor are his.

     It is stated by John Locke that in the state of nature no man may take more then he can consume. “…make use of any advantage of life before it spoils…whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. (Locke 14)” Locke then goes on to say, “God gave the world to man … for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational- and labor was to be his title… (Lock 15)”

Having established his state of nature, Locke begins his description of the formation and transition to society, and appropriately starts with a discussion of property. “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.” (Locke, Second Treatise, V.26). Here, Locke does little more than apply natural law (self preservation) to what he sees around him (land), but in doing so, makes a groundbreaking shift. He reveals that, following from natural law, men have a right to use what they have around them to further their own preservation and lives. In addition, man has an inherent, and obvious, possession of himself and all that comes with it, including, and most importantly, labor. “The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” (Locke, Second Treatise,

Next, under Locke’s state of nature, he also places a heavy emphasis on extensive rights, including property rights. He believed that self-determination implied private property rights and that human life without property is not free. In refutation to this

John Locke (“Locke”) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (“Rousseau”) are two of the most well known European political philosophers to this day. Locke is a 17th century political philosopher due to him writing his works in the late 1600s. On the other hand Rousseau is an 18th century political philosopher with his writings coming approximately 100 years after Locke’s. While it is known that most philosophers build off the works of their predecessors, there is a vast range between Locke and Rousseau when it comes to the concept of private property. On the one hand, Locke considered the right of property to be a God given right and one that everyone is entitled to. When compared to Locke, Rousseau viewed the notion of owning property to be a negative addition to society. By placing these two political philosopher’s views against each other, this paper will argue that their difference of opinions is based in their account of how each define the state of nature. Rousseau states, “The philosophers who have examined the foundations of society have all felt the necessity of returning to the state of nature…was civilized man they depicted” can be viewed as Rousseau admitting he knows there is a difference between himself and Locke. By exploring the differences between Locke’s civil man and Rousseau’s natural man, this will clarify why these two political philosophers have different foundations and theories when it comes to private property.

In order for property rights to exist, they must be recognized by other individuals through the act of mixing physical labor with nature. In The Second Treatise of Government Locke says, “The labor of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his. So when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labor with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property.” Here Locke is stating that if one works and puts their labor into that something it is now his or hers property and that person can do whatever they want to

It is important that labor be involved in the claiming of private property. Locke believes the earth is common property until a person exerts his or her activity on it (18-20). It eliminates any doubt or quarreling over who has a right to what property (Locke 27). Since it is “labor indeed that puts the difference of value on everything,” people are set apart by the amount of unique effort they exert to obtain their property. This proves man “is perfectly his own and does not belong in common to others (Locke 29).” Rather than