FREE ESSAY ON JOHN LOCKE THEORY OF PROPERTY

JOHN LOCKE THEORY OF PROPERTY

Perhaps one of, if not the, most historically influential political thinkers of the
western world was John Locke. John Locke, the man who initiated what is now known as
British Empiricism, is also considered highly influential in establishing grounds,
theoretically at least, for the constitution of the United States of America. The basis
for understanding Locke is that he sees all people as having natural God given rights. As
God's creations, this denotes a certain equality, at least in an abstract sense. This
religious back drop acts as a the foundation for all of Locke's theories, including his
theories of individuality, private property, and the state. The reader will be shown how
and why people have a natural right to property and the impact this has on the sovereign,
as well as the extent of this impact.
Locke was a micro based ideologist. He believed that humans were autonomous individuals
who, although lived in a social setting, could not be articulated as a herd or social
animal. Locke believed person to stand for, 
"... a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider
itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places, which it only
does by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking." This ability to reflect,
think, and reason intelligibly is one of the many gifts from God and is that gift which
separates us from the realm of the beast. The ability to reason and reflect, although
universal, acts as an explanation for individuality. All reason and reflection is based
on personal experience and reference. Personal experience must be completely individual
as no one can experience anything quite the same as another.
This leads to determining why Locke theorized that all humans, speaking patriarchially
with respect to the time "why all men," have a natural right to property. Every man is a
creation of God's, and as such is endowed with certain individual abilities and
characteristics as gifts from God. Not being able to know God's exact wishes for man,
Locke believed that all men have an obligation to develop and caress these gifts. In
essence, each man was in charge of his own body and what was done with his body. Of
course, for Locke, each man would do the reasonable thing and develop his natural skills
and potentials to the best of his abilities, in the service of God. 
The belief in God given abilities and the obligations that follow are not totally
deterministic. Man, endowed with reason, could choose not to develop these abilities.
Having the ability to choose the development of his potential, each man is responsible
for that potential and consequently is responsible for his own body. The development, or
lack therein, is a consequence of individual motivation and is manifested through labor.

In keeping with the theory of one's body is one's own, a man's property can be explained
in terms of the quantifying forces of his labors. Physical labor or exercisation of his
mind, to produce fruits for this person's labor, is then his own property. Locke believed
that one did not need the consent of a sovereign, as far as property was concerned,
because it is the melding of labor and nature that makes anything owned. Yolton
articulates this when he states, "(b)y mixing my work, my energy with some object,
(nature), I particulise that object, it's commonness becomes particular" Locke believed
that as long as there was plenty for others, consent was pointless, irrelevant and would
merely be an overzealous exercision of power. Pointless because as long as there was more
for others in the common store, one was not infringing on another's natural rights.
Irrelevant because property production or the use of labor was completely individualistic
and one should not be able to control another's labor as it is an infringement on their
natural rights. 
There are however limits, as far as property and labor are concerned. One limit is that
of non destruction. God did not create anything for man to destroy. The amount produced
by any man should be kept in check by his level of destruction. For example, there is a
big difference between the cutting of one or a few trees and the harvesting of an entire
forest. Yolton explicates this by stating that, "... specific rights comes in conjunction
with this restriction. Since 'Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy,' the
property making function of man's activities ought to be curbed at the point of spoilage.
If my acquisition spoils, I offend against the law of nature, since I have, in the
beginning, 'no Right, further than' my use. What is useful and is used has value and the
person who uses them a right to them. The same rules are cited for land as for the
produce of land." 
The making of currency as an unspoilable property and medium for exchange seems to have
by-passed this limit all together. Inequality becomes rampant and as such an authority is
needed to protect a man's property and the social peace. With the advent of money as
unspoilable property, certain inequalities amoungst men would develop. Those with less
start to feel cheated and used. This is very dangerous for those with more, because with
these inequalities, comes the danger of theft, or injury to property or body. It is for
this reason that people enter into a social contract and appoint a soveriegn. The
sovereign has the ability to protect those whose property is in danger, and will do so
through the passing and enforcing of laws. In this way not only is a man's property
protected, but a state of peace is maintained as well. 
Locke not only believed in one individual's right to property, but every individual's
right to property. Since every person is a creation of God's, and it must be God's wish
that we serve him through the abilities that he's given us, to interfere with a man and
his labor, or the consequence of his labor, that is, his property, would be to interfere
with God's wishes. It is here that we begin to see the limits of men as well as the
limits of the soveriegn. After all, how anyone interfere with the wishes of God?
Locke believed that the power for social control must come from the sovereign. This
sovereign is responsible to the will of the people, but has a protective authority,
governing both over land and people. Locke believed that if a body of people, that is a
community of people, chose to live and interrelate amongst each other, they must choose
to live by a greater force, that is they must enter into a social contract. This force
was the power of the majority manifested through the creation of a sovereign. Problems
can arise, when individuals cannot agree. For this reason there must be a ruler and
government to decide disagreements, make and enforce laws, and govern man.
The enforcement of rules is not as absolute as it may sound. Even with the existence of a
limited monarchy, man retains his individual and God given rights. As such, the
sovereign, had no right to aquire or take away the property of another. If he did so he
would be going against, God, the people, and all that is natural. The extent of the
services of the existing sovereign is to govern over, protect, and enforce the laws of
the people. Locke believed that the role of the sovereign and his authority is in serving
the people and that there must not be parental, that is absolute authority. Yolton
explains this like so, "If royal authority is derived from parental authority ... there
would be as many kings as fathers... from parental power it necessarily follows either
that that all fathers have royal authority - in which case a contradiction arises - no
one has royal authority." In this way Locke is seen as a man who wants to limit the power
of the sovereign over the individual. Locke believed that the sovereign, created out of
the need for the protection of individual rights, that is, out of the need for protection
of the privacy of property, could not manifest itself publicly through excessive social
control. Perhaps Locke's idea is better explained this way. "From privacy of possession,
publicity of sovereignty does not follow...`no Man could ever have a just Power over the
life of another, by Right of property in Land or possessions'" This, of course, would
include the man of sovereignty and the men of government. Property sets the limit of
sovereignty, in that no man has just power over another or another's property. This right
comes directly from God, because it is a God given right that a man should gain property
through labor. This also sets the tone of the role of government, that of servitude
instead of command.
Locke believed that civil society existed to free individuals from the insecurity of the
state of nature. He thought that men united voluntarily in a concerted effort of
preserving and protecting life, liberty, and estate. Here again we see the importance of
property. Government within limits can work beneficially for all of man kind. This means
that a sovereign would be necessary for the preservation of lives, the promotion of
freedom, and the protection of estate. Locke is quite adamant about the preservation of
individual freedom which Aaron describes as "need(ing) to be jealously preserved." 
This right to the property produced through labor is an inalienable right that each and
every individual has. Even the soveriegn has no right to interfere with or take away a
man's property. This is the true limit of any man or governing body. 
Locke favored a limited monarchy. This is an elected legislative assembly and a monarch
that have the power to direct the commonwealth to preserve the community and it's members
and their rights. Locke believed that people were the absolute sovereign, and that if the
appointed sovereign abused his authority the people would have the right to dissolve the
government. This right of the people reinforces the limitations of the sovereign, while
enforcing the accountability of the sovereign. It is in this sense that the community or
the aggregation of individuality, retains power over the sovereign and in essence limits
it's power. This is the extent of the limitation of authority of the sovereign. The
sovereign is a servant of the people, that has limited power only as long as the majority
allows it to have power. It was Locke's intent that the state was made for the individual
and that the sovereign be used as a protective instrument for the good of the
individual.
Locke's ideas of property are based on God given rights. Each person has been given a
body, with certain abilities and potentials, to use by God. The use of this body is
called labor and its product is called property. Since everyone has a body and a level of
potential everyone is capable of producing property. The purpose of the sovereign is to
protect the individuals right to property and their property. The sovereign is limited in
it's power and authority and does not have the right to take or interfere with any man's
property, since to do so would be an interference with the right's of man as given by
God. It was Locke's hope that with such an ideology behind a people and their government
that they might attain and retain Locke's version of the good life, that is life,
liberty, and most importantly estate.
Bibliography
Aaron, Richard, John Locke, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1963.
Bowie, James, Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, MacMillan Publishing, New
York, 1964.
Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford University Press, London,
1975.
Magill, Frank, Masterpieces of World Philosophy, Harper and Row, New York, 1961.
O'Connor, D.J., John Locke, Pelican Books, London, 1952.
Squadrito, Kathleen, Locke's Theory of Sensitive Knowledge, University Press of America,
Washington, 1978.
Yolton, J.W., Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1970.