Locke vs. Marx: Views on Property Rights

Locke’s idea of the state of nature men had kept their promises and honoured their obligations. In locke’s first treatise he argued that there was no divine right for monarchs, because God didn't put men above others and therefore everyone was equal. In his second treatise he strikes Hobbes and speaks his thought on the state of nature “man is free and in this condition all men equal”. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free to order their actions, of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the of the law of nature. This idea influenced him to believe that human nature is represented by reason and tolerance the reasoning was "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is the reason. Much different than Hobbes, who had believed people were selfish and needed to be

In the state of nature, natural law governs the behavior of each individual. This means that each person has the ability to implement that law

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.

“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 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”. “From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) has still in himself the great foundation of property;...” (Locke, 1978

Karl Marx and John Locke both formulated philosophical theories that worked to convince people of their rights to freedom and power; however, they had conflicting viewpoints on the idea of private property. Locke felt that property belonged to whoever put their labor into it, and one could accumulate as much property as he or she wants (692). Marx, however, considered the private property of the select few who possessed it to be the product of the exploitation of the working class (1118). Personally, I believe that Locke’s conception of private property is more convincing than Marx’s point of view.

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 was the man who began to express the idea of natural rights. The idea of natural rights is that all humans are born with three natural rights: life, liberty, and property. You are meant to respect these rights, which gives us limits as humans. For example, one can not just rob someone’s house without consequences. If someone does commit theft they are punished because they are

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.

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ

Karl Marx on the other hand, has a wildly different opinion on property. In his most famous piece, The Communist Manisfesto, Marx’s opinion is set up in one line; "… the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property” (Marx in Cahn 885). Marx firmly believed that ownership of private property was a way in which the social classes became more divided, and in turn, a way to oppress the poor. His opinion largely stems from the time period in which he lived (1818-1883), where factory owners infamously underpaid employees for dangerous work in treacherous conditions. However, Marx idea of private property was a bit different from Locke and did not mean things like land ownership or personal items, but the relation of individuals used for the means of production in a privately owned enterprise. Marx points out however, that in this state, unlike the ideas and time of Locke (1632-1704), the laborers do not benefit or acquire any property from their labor. In fact, the capital they are producing is the “kind of property that exploits wage labor” (Marx in Cahn 886) and serves to oppress them and further the division of classes. Therefore, Marx aimed to take this “private property” and give it to the Proletariats in order to change its status from the elite ownership of the Bourgeoisie, to the

In refutation to Locke’s state of nature argument, we can look towards Hobbes, Rousseau, and Mill to provide us with insightful objections. It can be claimed that first society should not have the right to self-determination but instead the right to self preserve, that property rights are social institutions and not inherent natural rights, and finally that not everyone in society is guaranteed property rights.

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

“The Second Treatise of Government” is a short passage where John Locke explains what political power is and how political power is the way to make laws used for protection. In his view, these laws are only used to work when people accept them and because they are good for the public. In chapter 2, Locke explains that all people are originally in a state of nature. A person is in this state is a person that is bound by the rules of nature. He also states that human beings that are free from these laws have the obligation to protect the interests of other people, since they are the children of God. These people also have the obligation to punish those who go against God’s choices and harm others around them

Marx may argue that the destruction of private property would give the lower classes more freedom and destroys the system of oppression, but it will not give back the workman his individuality. Private property is not the only source of oppression as we have seen in