Property Debate Between Locke & Rousseau

The definition of natural rights, according to Locke, is that, “Everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since they come from nature or from God, natural rights cannot be justly taken away without consent (Bill of Rights Institute).” Tying this into the idea on property rights, it is evident that Locke presumed God had given the earth to man to share collectively as a whole. Since God has given the world

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.

Locke argues that since money has little value besides for the value that men give it, men, by accepting the use of money, have “agreed to a disproportionate and unequal passion of the earth, they have, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of” (698). Locke places high value on property. He says that human beings are born with a natural right to preserve their own property, that is, their life, liberty, and estate. He also says that the preservation of property is the number one reason people enter into a civil society. A civil society is there to protect the natural rights of humans, which is the preservation of their private property (707).

In the Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, he writes about the right to private property. In the chapter which is titled “Of Property” he tells how the right to private property originated, the role it plays in the state of nature, the limitations that are set on the rights of private property, the role the invention of money played in property rights and the role property rights play after the establishment of government.. In this chapter Locke makes significant points about private property. In this paper I will summarize his analysis of the right to private property, and I will give my opinion on some of the points Locke makes in his book. According to Locke, the right to private property originated when God gave the world to

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.

     In Locke’s opinion the idea of fair unequal distribution of wealth came about with the creation of money. Before money, things could not be saved fairly. Over stocking by some would lead to spoilage, and leave others with nothing. Once money was introduced though, this allowed the accumulation of wealth, without waste, so Locke says “…thus came in the use of money- some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that by mutual consent men would take in exchange for the truly useful but perishable supports of life. (Locke 20).” Now one man could have, “ … a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth… (And) …fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of…(Locke 22)”. The word “fairly” in that last statement should jump off the page.

99). Rousseau viewed property as a right “which is different from the right deducible from the law of nature” (Rousseau, p. 94). Consequently, “the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary…societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth” (Rousseau, p. 99). Many political societies were developed in order for the rich to preserve their property and resources. Rousseau argues that these societies “owe their origin to the differing degrees of inequality which existed between individuals at the time of their institution,” (Rousseau, p. 108). Overall, the progress of inequality could be constructed into three phases. First, “the establishment of laws and of the right of property” (Rousseau, p. 109) developed stratification between the rich and poor. Then, “the institution of magistracy” and subsequently “the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power” (Rousseau, p. 109) created a dichotomy between the week and powerful, which ultimately begot the power struggle between slave and master. According to Rousseau, “there are two kinds of inequality among the human species…natural or physical, because it is established by nature…and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it… is established…by the consent of men,” (Rousseau, p. 49).

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

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.

“This fame study of original man, of his real wants, and of the fundamental principle of his duties, is likewise the only good method we can take, to surmount an infinite number of difficulties concerning the Origins of Inequality, the true foundations of political bodies, the reciprocal rights of their members, and a thousand other familiar questions that are as important as they are ill understood.” (Rousseau, Preface lviii)

Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and

As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right, to say every body else has an equal title to it; and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind….God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour" (Locke, §32).

If one compares Locke and Rousseau noticeable similarities and differences can be found. Both men advocate similar ideas with different outcomes regarding the state of nature. Furthermore, Locke and Rousseau both come to distinct actualization and prophecies. Regarding the progression and advancement of mankind. Therefore, by comparing and contrasting these two distinct teachings one can find the true principles behind the state of nature and the natural laws inherent in mankind.

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are great political philosophers that have many similar insights about society and its political form. However, when closely examining the writings of these thinkers, one can easily discover many subtle differences among them. The two philosophers base their theories on different assumptions, which subsequently lead to dissimilar ideas about the origin of society and the constitution of governments. As a result, their views of the development of society greatly dissent from each other. Locke's and Rousseau's different versions in the development of society cause them to reach disparate conclusions concerning the legislative power, social unit, and revolution rights of the society. Locke believes that