Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property Essay

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda

Introduction

Locke’s initial stance on property, show that he believes that all land and the resources it contains are not owned by one particular person or group of individuals. It instead belongs to the entire humanity. However, at the end of this theory, he sums up by saying that people have the right to partition property based on the quantity of labor they have put in and they can do this without asking for permission from the propertyless. This is quite open to interpretation and the divide between taking up land for purely subsistence use or simply hoarding it was a gray area that Locke saw the need to further clarify. The transition from acquiring unowned resources to declaring them as one’s own is something that is still controversial even in today’s capitalist economies. (Nozick, p 236)

We will write a custom essay on your topic a custom Essay on Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property
808 writers online

The justification for these appropriations of property was purely based on the amount of labor put in, but Locke further added some provisos or conditions that should be satisfied before one could claim ownership over some property. These provisos tried to put a ceiling on the amount of rights a family could have over some property. It is worth noting that the transition from a person owning property to his family also laying claim to it generations later was abhorred by some quarters at that time.

However Locke believed that the laborer altered the land and supposedly also added value to it therefore after his demise, his surviving family members had the right to claim inheritance to this piece of land. Appropriations in the state of nature could easily be subject to abuse but Locke believed that as long as these provisos were met, then the “inequalities that can exist without an upper limit to the size of a family’s or an individual’s holdings would not materialize.”(Waldron, p 168)

Locke’s Interpretation of the Provisos

The first proviso, the no-waste proviso clarifies that a person should not waste their property or take more than they can use. Though the state of nature is described as being bountiful, the proviso limits the size of holdings to “the amount a person can work by herself hence ensuring great equality of wealth in that state.”(Waldron, p 168) The limitations seem to apply to resources like land but when wealth is looked at in terms of monetary gains, no maximum limitations are set. Locke believed this proviso was important especially in settling the land issues of that particular time whereby some people were holding onto large tracts of fallow land yet there were other poor citizens who could not grow subsistence food to feed their families. (Swanson, p401)

He believed that if people hoard more than they can consume, it would lead to wastage and there won’t be enough to go around. Locke further added that such a situation cannot replicate itself in a monetary economy. In this new scenario, people have a tendency to hold onto their financial wealth and not waste it with the hope that such investments could return an interest in the future. The no-waste proviso would therefore be unnecessary in a monetary economy. The no waste proviso does appear to have some loop holes like for example what if a rich person owns a sizable piece of land but still refuses to employ poor people to work on it?

The subsistence or charity proviso he came up with tries to entangle such a scenario. Locke saw that “every person is entitled to some means of maintaining some means of subsistence.”(Swanson, p401) Such a necessity would require some form of unconditional charity to those who are unable to fend for themselves. Those who are able bodied still maintain the right to work for their own produce.

The subsistence proviso has been used as an example to justify today’s income tax and medical care policies. According to Locke, such charitable measures were not really necessary in a healthy economy where the able bodied are guaranteed jobs and the weak can rely on voluntary charity. The gauntlet was therefore thrown to the able bodied persons or the rich of the society and what role they will have to play in taking care of the people who are not so fortunate. Nevertheless it appears the subsistence proviso “was meant as a paternal responsibility for the property-owning class rather than a challenge to the institution of concentrated ownership.”(Swanson, p 403)

1 hour!
The minimum time our certified writers need to deliver a 100% original paper

In an effort to further protect the propertyless and the disabled in society, Locke further came up with the enough-and-as-good proviso. This translated to a person can take what is good enough to him but he should leave enough for others. By leaving enough for others, this person can be held in the same light with one who did not take anything at all. This proviso has attracted a lot of attention and is commonly referred to as the Lockean Proviso.

This proviso does seem to justify the right of appropriation without asking for permission from the propertyless even if one is taking what is simply enough for himself. The exact wordings of this proviso reads like “at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.”(Locke, p 56) Translating this statement directly without altering it portrays the message that there are “other unspecified cases in which a person can appropriate even though there is not enough and as good left for others.”(Locke, p 56)

Such a translation is just one of the many that have been derived from this proviso but what stands out is the fact that Locke incorporated the words “at least” in this proviso which qualifies as some form of limitation. Adding to this, he quoted this proviso quite a number of times and the first two provisos do show some form of resemblance to this one and this cements the fact that he strongly believed in this particular proviso.

Various interpretations have arisen from Locke’s 3 provisos on property and this has elicited sharp debates with each side drawing its own conclusions from the 3 provisos. The way Locke structured his sentences especially in the 3rd proviso has played a big part in the misconceptions that have been drawn from his statements. Whether he did this unwittingly or the messages portrayed were his actual stance is an issue that is still open to debate.

Further Interpretations

The no-waste proviso seemed like a good measure for countering people who were hoarding large tracts of land especially one that is cultivatable. According to Locke then, it would be appropriate to therefore lay claim to a stretch of land that would only be just enough for cultivation in order to feed yourself and your family. Anything more than these would be regarded as wastage and it would therefore be more prudent to leave the excess for someone else.

A contradiction does however arise when a person claims ownership to property and by doing so he is “locking-out” other people from also claiming ownership yet he did not ask for their permission in the first place, It appears that the no-waste proviso will appear relevant if the bountiful supply of nature is confirmed and the responsibility would therefore be on the people to conserve it by not wasting it.(Swanson, p 410) However relying on mankind to act responsibly when it comes to conservation is too much of an ask since most people will be thinking selfishly when acquiring further property and justify this by saying that only they are the true judges of knowing how much is enough. They would only be concerned with themselves and have little sympathy for others. (Russell, p 291)

“This wasn’t the message Locke was portraying but the possibility that someone could use his provisos as justification for hoarding property doesn’t seem highly unlikely.”(Waldron, 172) Maybe what he was hoping for is after one has acquired wealth through their own labor, they should at least have the social responsibility of leaving enough for others to also gain through their own labor. Locke believed that this social obligation did exist in his “Report of the Board of Trade” and in his subsistence or charity proviso. While justification in owning large tracts of land that was mostly idle was highly condemned but did happen according to the no-wastage proviso, these owners had the moral obligation to employ these propertyless workers on their land so as to earn some income. (Swanson, p 412)

Remember! This is just a sample
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers

Initially, it appeared like the wealthier classes that own these large tracts of land were performing a great duty to the poor since they were paying them to work on their farms. E P Thompson argued that so long as the poor were better clothed and fed than they had been before, Locke essentially justified the dislocation of thousands of poor farmers from their “common” lands. The actual situation was after these wealthy classes had accrued these unclaimed “common” lands, they effectively locked out these poor farmers from their grazing lands. We can further argue that it is these poor farmers were the only ones adhering to Locke’s provisos on property since they grazed and cultivated the land responsibly. (Russell, p 296)

Lifting of the Provisos

What is ironic is the 3 provisos on property seemed to justify the wealthy class actions instead of promoting equality in property ownership. In justifying these actions, Locke stated that everyone had a right to take private property from the “commons” as long as they labored to make the property more productive than it had been. This does directly “contradict the enough-and-as-good proviso since selfish interests will drive people towards acquiring more and more property at the expense of the weak in society.”(Nozick, p 238) This led to a situation where some people had no property at all and Locke argued that this was as a result of their lack of labor; and this underscores his tag as an individualist. From the Board of Trade report, Locke saw the poverty problem afflicting London at that time was due to the lack of work ethic amongst the poor.

His solution was focused on making the poor labor in involuntary “workhouses.” Such an occurrence could have been avoided if “every person is entitled to some means of maintaining some means of subsistence.”(Swanson, p 401) as he had stated in the subsistence or charity proviso Even if the local businesses were required to pay for these involuntary workhouses, does the profit generated from acquiring a poor farmer’s land reflect on the wages you will be paying this poor farmer to work on your( or his) land?(Ryan, p 91)

Marx

Both Marx and Locke give us an explicit view as to the different definitions of ownership of property in their respective societies. While Locke views property as something to be acquired through one’s hard labor, Marx instead is “totally against ownership of private property” (Roemer, p 120) for the simple reason that such a situation would lead to inequality in a society as was demonstrated by the “Enclosure Controversy”. The weaknesses exposed in Locke’s theory are what can be regarded as the strengths of a communist society while the major advantage of Locke’s theory which is being rewarded with ownership after hard labor is the major weakness in Marx’s ideology.

In its initial interpretation without lifting of the provisos, “Locke’s philosophies do bear some similarity to the communist socialist manifesto.”(Ryan, p 91) No person lays claim to a particular property and if through your own labor are able to reap from the land, then you should take only what is enough for you and leave the rest for someone else. Such a system makes the fear of a propertyless society that was expressed by Marx seem far fetched since everyone has the social obligation to take only what is good enough for them. (Roemer, p 120)

Earlier in the second treatise, Locke argues that the main reason that people congregate into these societies is to protect their properties from the state of anarchy that arises due to having too much freedoms outside the realms of society.

It is therefore obvious to such citizens that if they selfishly acquire private property at the expense of their fellow beings, then the chances of going back to a state of anarchy, a state they ran away from at the expense of giving up some of their freedoms, will be highly likely. Looking at the demerits of the communist manifesto at this point, the major reason for social upheaval could be certain sections in the society feel they are working too hard and they are not being rewarded with the fruits of their labor. Also, Communism calls for the state to have complete control over all property and this leads to the creation of two classes in society.

You have the average citizens who have almost the same economic equality; and the people in power who pretty much are the ones controlling all property. While such an ideology will succeed in breaking down the class system in the general population, there will always be some “disgruntled voices being leveled towards those in power and what moral authority they have in deciding who should get what.” (Roemer, p 124)

We will write
a custom essay
specifically for you
Get your first paper with
15% OFF

We must not forget that the main reason why Locke “wrote the two treatises was because of the grandiose inequality monarch system that was being proposed by Robert Filmer.(Locke, p 56) On the other hand, Locke’s philosophy calls for individual ownership of property with the government’s role only being protecting this economic system that will arise. Locke justifies his philosophy by arguing that if people feel an injustice in their civil society they will revolt. If an inequality in the distribution of wealth between the two classes in communist society ever arises, then, people will most likely revolt because they feel their freedoms are being infringed on.

On the other hand, Marx also adds that private property societies (Locke’s philosophy) are also doomed to fail eventually because of the greed of its members. Locke’s theories do display these weaknesses after the lifting of the provisos and this was seen in the “Enclosure Controversy” or in today’s capitalist economies that seem to go “boom and burst” after every two decades or more. Marx’s communist manifesto does seem to tolerate Locke’s three provisos on property up to the point when the provisos are lifted. (Roemer, p 126)

Kelo

For the case of Kelo and the government’s role in taking over private property for the sake of increasing tax benefits, the government is usurping its “role as the preserver of an economic system and instead moving towards a Marxist role of being the sole owner of property.”(Nozick, p 237) Locke’s state of nature forms the basis of the Kelo argument in that mankind will surrender certain freedoms in a state of anarchy and instead join a society with others in order to preserve their property. Adding to this, since the government does not own this property, “it cannot lay claim to its ownership or take it away from the owner without his consent.”(Ryan, p 91)

Kelo’s interpretations of private property and ownership rights show similarity with Locke’s state of nature but a deviation occurs when some of the provisos on private property are lifted. While both parties share similar principles on a person’s right to claim ownership over private property, Locke is the one who seems to differ especially when he adapts an individualistic approach that justifies forceful acquisition of property as long as you believe that you can increase its productivity or profitability. That is just downright criminal; but not according to the Supreme Court. (Waldron, p 174)

Works Cited

Locke, J. Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960, pp 56-59.

Nozick, R. Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books, Inc, 1974, pp 236-239.

Russell, P Locke on Express and Tacit Consent: Misinterpretations and Inconsistencies. Political Theory, 1986 14 (2): 291-306.

Roemer, J. Free to Lose: An Introduction to Marxist Economic Philosophy. London: Radius/Century Hutchinson, 1988, pp 118-126.

Ryan, A. Property and Political Theory, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984, pp 88-91.

Swanson, S. G. The Medieval Foundations of John Locke’s Theory of Natural Rights: Rights of Subsistence and the Principle of Extreme Necessity, History of Political Thought 1997 18 (3): 399-459.

Waldron, J The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, pp 168-174.

Print
Need an custom research paper on Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property written from scratch by a professional specifically for you?
808 writers online
Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2021, November 3). Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property. https://ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-the-three-provisos-on-property/

Work Cited

"Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property." IvyPanda, 3 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-the-three-provisos-on-property/.

References

IvyPanda. (2021) 'Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property'. 3 November.

References

IvyPanda. 2021. "Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property." November 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-the-three-provisos-on-property/.

1. IvyPanda. "Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property." November 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-the-three-provisos-on-property/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Philosophy: The Three Provisos on Property." November 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-the-three-provisos-on-property/.

Powered by CiteTotal, online essay citation generator
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Request the removal
More related papers
Cite
Print
1 / 1