Natural Rights
Locke viewed property as a natural right derived from a natural law. Locke put forward that the natural law could be known by all the people through their reasoning (Tuckness, 2010)
His view on natural law is normative rather than descriptive. It is what should be happening in society and not what is happening in the society. Once man had been created, he has a right to live. Secondly he has a right to freedom, as long as it does not interfere with other’s people right to life. The third right is the right to property as long as it did not affect other people’s right to life and freedom.
His right to property comes from his right to live given by God and as such it would not be right to deny anyone their natural rights. Locke put forward that man had changed the natural order of things
Looking at Locke’s theory on natural law, there are a few points that I disagree with. There are natural rights such as the right to live and freedom if one adheres to the law of the land. However when it comes to land or property, with the introduction of a monetary medium of exchange, it ceases being a natural right.
That is why the governments of this world have two categories of land: public land and private property. Private property system allocates land to an individual and others are excluded from using the land without his or her permission (Waldron, 2010) Public land belongs to the state and no one can say they own it. One will only have access to land and its use if they have bought it at a price from the previous owner. Others cannot use the land without the owner’s permission.
Natural right to property
Locke put forward that when God created man he gave him the right to property. All men had the opportunity to have land and enjoy it. The second activity that took place is that people started to apply their labor to the land and thus took possession of the land. Locke saw labor as something that was owned by the individual, the concept of self-ownership.
Whatever the man mixed with his labor became his (Locke, 1988 [1689], II, para 27). As they applied productive labor to the land there was enough goods and services for everyone (Forde, 2001). However, further along in the society there was the introduction of a monetary medium. Now people could accumulate land.
When it reaches this stage, it created the need of a political and social order (Suits, 1977). The government was put in place by the people and would only operate if the people consented to the government. Locke wrote that if the government did not ensure that the people got their natural rights of life, freedom and property, it would be overthrown.
Locke also saw labor as something owned by the individual however that is not the case now in the capitalist community. Marx put forward that in the capitalist society, the workers would not even own their own labor. It would come a point where they would have to work or starve to death as there was a reserve of unemployed labor in the market anxious to get employed. The worker’s labor therefore belongs to the rich (Simmons, 1992, p 335).
The worker therefore ends up working for low wages and he does not enjoy his productivity. It is the employer who ends up becoming richer. The poor laborer or worker, once the land becomes scarce cannot equitably enjoy the fruits of labor with the landowner. Furthermore, when the worker puts his labor on the land it does not become his, it is still held by the owner till he can afford to purchase it.
I agree with Locke on the need of a political and social order on the administration of property. Land is a scarce resource. It therefore needs a means of allocation that is measurable and equitable. Locke recognized this and that is why he stated the creation of a political society to see the allocation of property (Tully, 1980, p165). It therefore ceases being a natural right. One cannot just demand for a piece of land unless they have the financial resources to buy the land (Hume, 1978, p 489).
I agree with Marx that the government cannot be relied on to ensure Locke’s natural right to property as it would be under the control of the rich elite. (Marx & Engels, 1999, p15) Locke and Marx both saw the possibility of the people overthrowing the government to instill an equitable distribution of land. This is because the equitable concepts of labor and property had been tarnished by the social inequality in the society. It was intended by nature and by God that land be a natural right for all the people.
Marx had the same ideals to some extent but he advocated that land is a natural right and thus land should be held collectively by the people and never as private property.
Locke’s argument has been criticized as supporting capital accumulation with the introduction of a monetary system. The social classes are entrenched with property held in the hands of the elite. It would be better if land was held collectively, this would ensure that all the people’s interests are served and not just a select few (Plato, 1993, 462b-c). However, land as private property in the money markets is good since it causes efficiency in production. Every owner will be working to ensure his business is doing well (Aristotle, 1988, 1263a). Land has never really been a natural right. Even in the beginning, there was the recognition that land was a scarce resource. There was a lot of fighting and social conflict as people sought to dominate the other’s piece of land (Hume, 1978, p 489). The people then settled into a financial and political agreement where land is traded instead of being fought for. Furthermore, the systems of socialism and communism have failed. The capitalist system is what has survived at the end of the day with the United States as the only Super Power.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the beginning stages of Locke’s theory. Land was never a natural right. Only the strong had land through dominating the weak through conquests. In the present world, land belongs to the one who has invested or bought the land. It is now a system where the property value is determined by the market systems.
I agree with Locke that with the introduction of money, people could now amass properties. However I disagree with him that the government ensures that people get their property rights. There are governments which may allow businessmen to purchase property however a government filled with a certain class of wealthy people may ensure that others never get the opportunity to invest and accumulate wealth.
References
Aristotle (1988) The Politics [c. 330 BCE], Stephen Everson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hume, D. (1978). A Treatise of Human Nature [1739] L.A. Selby–Bigge and P. H. Nidditch (eds.).Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government [1689] Peter Laslett (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, Karl and Fredrich Engels. Communist Manifesto. New York; Signet Classics, 1999.
Plato, Republic [c. 370 BCE], Robin Waterfield (trans.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Simmons, A. (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Steven F. (2001) Natural Law, Theology, and Morality in Locke American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 396-409.
Suits, D. (1977). On Locke’s Argument for Government. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1(3), 195-203
Tuckness, A. (2010). Locke’s Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall Edition. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/locke-political/
Tully, J. (1980). A Discourse on Property, John Locke and his adversaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, J. (2010). Property and Ownership. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter Edition. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/property/