How does the argument from individuation counter Filmer's model of property and government and justify the colonial exploitation of the New World?

Kristina Shamieva

How does the argument from individuation counter Filmer’s model of property and government and justify the colonial exploitation of the New World?

Hegel argued that all thought, including philosophy, is fundamentally “historical” in nature: the philosopher’s supreme efforts are but the developed, well-organized representation and expression of the “spirit of the time” in which the philosopher happens to live. This notion can be confirmed by looking at John Locke’s work The Two Treatises of the Government, where he sought to refute the pro-Absolutism theories from Patriarcha of Sir Robert Filmer. The content of both works symbolizes a clash between absolutism and liberalism, where the patriarchal political argument and liberal significance in rejecting it, mirrors the turbulent time the works were published at. Moreover, another important stage in history at that time— the colonisation of the New World— is also reflected in the work of John Locke, where he tries to justify the actions of Europeans. In order to oppose Filmer’s concept of property and government, which is based on the King’s divine rights, and validate colonial exploitation, Locke presents an ascending theory about the state of nature, where everything is in common use and individuals have equal rights; where only by investing labour, property can become private and there is no need of consent of others to do so; and to protect that property in a later stage people enter into a social contract by delegating their power to the state.

The Two Treatises of the Government was written by John Locke primarily to counter particular questions of government and property raised by Sir Robert Filmer in Patriarcha, where Filmer claimed that submission to patriarchal authority was the key to political obligation. According to Filmer, the family is the natural form of government and that states are developed from it. He believed that kings have divine rights and this belief was based on the religious argument that the ruler’s right derived from Adam, who was given by God the dominion over “every living thing that moveth over the Earth”. Then this divine right of Adam to own the whole world was passed down to all future kings, and therefore property is not collective from the beginning, but is held by one person. The argument made is that political authority is based on this individual kind of property rights and that people do not have a choice in choosing the government or a right of governing. However, in order to accumulate private property the only thing that people can do, since kings own everything, is to bargain, where property can be given to people in return for their obedience to the king.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Locke agreed with Filmer on the point that God gave everything to man, but contrary to Filmer he believed that God gave communal, collective property and not individual property of one person. For Locke property rights are basic natural rights of an individual, and property becomes private only by the means of labour. Individuals can appropriate things by mixing labour with it: “whatsoever man 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.” Locke’s idea of individuation is fundamental, as in order to get property, an individual has to put labour into it, and labour depends on the individual initiative and not agreement. An individual does not need the consent of others to secure ownership. This notion of individualism, where everyone is free to exercise their labour in accordance with the natural law for the sake of preservation and without consent of others is completely different way of thinking compared to Filmer, where people are just subjects to the will of their kings and everything is already predestined.

The way Locke explains how labour constitutes private property is in saying that anything what is created belongs to the man, who created it. The justification is that God creates man and has ownership over mankind, and what is true for God – true for man. Also, in Locke’s state of nature, every individual is equal, which is contradictory to Filmer’s idea of privileged rights of kings. Hence, it is given that an individual, being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it, owns everything that his labour produces.

Property plays a basic role in Locke’s theory, as individuality according to him is shaped by the person’s ability to appropriate. Locke presented the initial stage of every society – the state of nature, where individuals have equal rights, and hence people have to compete for self-preservation by relying upon their own strength. In this state of nature there is no law enforcement, even if there are natural laws, it is left for individuals to apply them. The natural law is basically “reason”, which dictates two central rules: individuals have a duty to preserve themselves and that everyone has a duty to preserve the rest of the mankind. When people can see that there was a breach of these natural rules, anyone may undertake to punish the offender. However, when this method becomes inefficient and invisible, political societies come in, where people contractually delegate their equal powers to judge, to artificial authority. So for Locke, political power opposing to Filmer is not paternal and descending, but consenting and ascending, where government has the right to make laws, punish their breach, and employ the force for the sake of society’s security and peace. In this created political state there are separate judicial, legislative and executive branches, where the legislative branch is the most important of the three, since it determines the laws that govern society. It is important to notice that government have jurisdictional rights in deciding the disputes between property rights, but it has no property rights in itself. From that follows that according to Locke the individual property rights are prior to the government rights. Another big difference from Filmer’s model is the fact that in Locke’s view governments are based on the common consent, and that this consent can be disrupted, when individuals are not satisfied with the way the government is handling its functions. People can just withdraw their power, their consent and set up a new government. Basically, it can be construed that Locke’s notion of individualism, coming from the idea that everyone has equal rights, is the foundation to the concept of the sovereignty, which is fasted in the hands of equal individuals, as they agree to form a government. All of that clearly sets off against Filmer’s contention that men are not “naturally free” and that property rights can only be distributed by the kings, who represent the legitimate government of “absolute monarchy”, which descends from the first man.

With regard to colonisation of the New World, Locke justified colonial exploitation by using his theory based on natural rights of individuals to appropriate property by the means of labour without anyone’s consent. In the Two treatises Locke directly identifies America as an example of the “state of nature”, putting it in the early stage of worldwide development “[I]n the beginning all the World was America”. From that premise follows that native Americans exercise individual self-government and they lack a system of political society. Since there are no property laws or legislature, which would control the appropriation of property in the state of nature, therefore, the rules, which govern colonisation, are only the rules of natural law. And because colonisation is in accordance with the natural laws, if native Americans try to resist colonisation, they are in breach of those laws and hence they deserve to be punished.

The contrast is that in Europe because political society exists, appropriation without the consent is not permitted, but in America, as it is in the state of nature appropriation without consent is allowed. The reason behind that is that appropriation without consent continues until money is introduced, land becomes scarce and there is no longer enough of it and as good for others. However, until then “there could be no doubt of Right, no room for quarrel” especially in the case of America, since it is a big country and there is more than enough land. But even if native Americans claimed to own land, in reality it is vacant, since it is not properly cultivated i.e. no labour was invested into it. So land is in the common use, and open for appropriation by anyone including colonisers without consent of others.

Due to lack of money and large population that would activate the desire to possess more, native Americans are limited in their wants and have no motivation to acquire more then they need. Thus, there is plenty of untouched land in America. But for Locke if land is uncultivated, it is a waste, as labour makes the far greatest part of the value of the things. So by appropriating land by the means of labour the common stock of mankind increases: “He that incloses land, has a greater plenty of the conveniences of life from ten acres, than he could have from an hundred left to nature, may truly be said to give ninety acres to mankind: for his labour now suppliers him with provisions out of ten acres, which were but the product of an hundred lying in common.” Hence, the argument runs that colonisation is good for native Americans, as appropriation of land produces more wealth by using it more effectively.

Finally, it can be concluded that Locke’s fundamental argument that people are equal and have the absolute liberty to act as they will, without interference from others plays an essential role in opposing Filmer’s model of property and government. The argument goes that by applying the natural rights in the state of nature, where everything is in common use individuals can appropriate things by mixing their labour with them. Whereas in Filmer’s model everything belongs to one person i.e. the king, who has divine rights given him by God and only by the process of bargain the king gives away his property in return for obedience. According to Locke in order to protect their extended property people enter into society by an agreement with others to delegate their natural rights to the government, which would make sure the law enforcement in the society. However, people still have the right to dissolve their government, if that government ceases to work solely in their best interest. This notion is completely different from Filmer’s theory, where individuals are not free and subjects to the will of the kings.

The idea of individuals being free to appropriate anything by the investment of labour without the consent of others is also a powerful element in Locke’s theory to justify colonization of the New World. The reason for that is that individuals who pour themselves into the land—improving its productivity by spending their own time and effort on its cultivation—acquire a property interest in the result and since America is in the state of nature appropriation without consent is permitted.

Bibliography

John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1982, Harlan Davidson, Wheeling.
James Tully, An approach to political philosophy: Locke in contexts, 1993, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
WT Murphy, Simon Roberts, Understanding Property Law, 1998, Sweet and Maxwell, London.