After establishing his view of the state of nature, Locke begins his description of why society should be established on unequal terms by starting to discuss the merits of unequal distribution of wealth through the establishment of common property. He argues that “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, [] convenience…and comfort of their being.’ Therefore, since all men are products of God’s creation no one truly has property rights over themselves, much less over others (Locke, 5.26). This is directly in contradiction with Rousseau who does not ascribe to the view that religion forces us to believe that men are unequal because God ‘himself drew men out of the state of nature, they are unequal because he wanted them to be so.’ Rousseau directly targets Locke as he believes that the fact that God gave world to men in common was automatically a way for religion to interfere and make men unequal. Essentially, this allows Rousseau to disregard the Biblical account of development in his arguments.
Locke claims that one gets property rights through the application of self-preservation to the common things which God has created such as land, and other resources allowing items to shift. As a result, the natural law allows men have a right to use what they have around them to further their own preservation and lives. Locke allows individuals to appropriate the lands that are in common so that enjoyment can be realized. However, man’s only ability to do this is through labour, which is his most important single possession to ensure security and self-preservation. Locke states that “the labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.” (Locke, 5.27). He further believes that the origin of property is the transition from the common to the owned. Work allows man to annex what was once common, and make it his own property. From this, man owns the animals he kills, the apples he picks, and the land he cultivates. In order to safeguard these items that have been appropriated Locke establishes a new political order. He boldly declares that “no political society can be, nor subsist without having in it self the power to preserve property.” (Locke, 7.87). As a result, new governments are established, laws and punishments are drafted, and adjudicators are given the authority to enforce the laws, all in order to protect life, liberty, and above all, the pursuit of property, which are the ideal values adopted by the United States and enshrined in their constitution. However, there are boundaries that Locke establishes that limit the ability to appropriate. First, is the ability for items in a pre-money economy to spoil. Second, we must leave ‘enough and as good left in common for others’ in fairness to the rest of society living in the state of nature. (Locke 5.33) As a result of these limits, I must question whether property ownership will be equal despite us knowing that the right to property will be equal because of the sufficiency clause. This causes many problems for Locke and is where Rousseau provides a substantial evaluation.
As compared to Locke, Rousseau brings a strong hatred of property and its possession which stems from the way that he views the source of property and the way that it is acquired by the individual, which ultimately causes economic inequality to occur. In essence, Locke’s focus on self-preservation and man being subject by reason so no one has the ability to harm anyone is outrageous to Rousseau. He states ‘Although it might be appropriate for Socrates and minds of his stature to acquire virtue through reason, the human race would long ago have ceased to exist, if its preservation has depended solely on the reasoning of its members.’ From my perspective, I believe that this directly questions Locke’s sufficiency and fairness rule as well as his promotion of self-preservation because the more advanced society gets the more dependant man becomes. Therefore, if Locke’s society is governed by reason I feel that it is possible for its members to become increasingly unconscionable due to their own will taking precedence over self-restraint, which is emphasized by Rousseau. Ultimately, This is directly in line with his belief that the savage man’s desire before the introduction of civil society does not exceed the possibilities, so they do not try to achieve what they cannot get. He further argues that In modern society these needs outrun the possibility, which produces a ‘multitude of fresh needs’ and tips the equilibrium. (Rousseau, 67) The need to acquire property became the main aspect and prospectively the most damaging that Locke suggests as a means to establish equality. Basically, this signified the ‘period of a first revolution, which formed a distinction…and which introduced a kind of property; whence perhaps there already arose quarrels and fights.’ (Rousseau, 62). In the end, this allowed the doors to be open to further acquisition. Overall, man in the new state has the ability to better satisfy his desires and personal comforts, as a result they become complacent and very much accustomed to what they have and thus make them want more creating a snowball effect. Added to this difficult socialization process that Locke creates due to his establishment of his unequal distribution of wealth, ‘savages’ begin to become very conscience oriented. They will want to start living life to please others and not themselves as they become subject to vanity and amour-propre. Rousseau concludes ‘inequality occasioned by the socialization process…[has created] differences among men, developed by those of circumstances, make themselves more noticeable, more permanent in their effects, and begin to influence the fate of private individuals’ (Rousseau, 67) Ultimately, I believe that the establishment of economic inequality begins to be seen in Rousseau’s argument as he moves from the social aspects of inequality to the more economic aspects.
The Second Treatise on government forces readers to pose the question of whether individuals can go around and accumulate all the property that they can get with their own labour that of someone else until there is no more? After all, the appropriation model establishes a close connection between the body and labour but individuals are able to break the connection and work for others, which forces me to posit another question of whether this is justified within Locke’s moral argument? He puts forward an adequate response to both tests of his theory as he states that individuals are able to “no man's labour could subdue, or appropriate all; … so that it was impossible for any man, this way, to intrench upon the right of another, or acquire to himself a property, to the prejudice of his neighbour, who would still have room for as good, and as large a possession.” (Locke, 5.36). He also establishes that you are unable to purchase human beings so the person in a post-money economy is able to purchase the individuals labour because it becomes the purchasers labour once it has been acquired removing any moral doubt that may have been raised. Nonetheless, I believe the establishment of the post-money state produces higher levels of inequality as a result of the individual’s ability to transcend the spoilage limit civil society is able to establish unregulated accumulation of capital. He outlines the transition to money as a benefit as ‘this partage of things in an inequality of private possessions, men have made practical out of the bounds of society without compact, only by putting value on gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing to the use of money.’
Conversely, Rousseau plainly argues that the establishment of property rights ultimately corrupts men and forces him into slavery despite Locke’s suggestion that labour would be a legitimate process for those who may not be as competitive. But, Rousseau further warns against Locke establishment of a competitive system because although it leads to the establishment of society, it also leads to vice and inequality, and will eventually lead to man’s downfall. In a commanding method, Rousseau exclaims the following: “Thus, when both the most powerful or the most miserable made of their strength or other needs a sort of right to another’s goods, equivalent, according to them, to the right of property, the destruction of equality was followed by the most frightful disorder.” (Rousseau, 68) Additionally, Rousseau rejects Locke’s suggestion that the worst off are better off than they could possibly be in pre-money economies when Locke states that ‘a king of a large and fruitful territory feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day-labourer in England’ (Locke, 5.41) Rousseau essentially fires back a contradictory view that the Carib would find the life of the work of a member of the English aristocracy a joke and would never want such a life. (Rousseau, 80) In fact this life would be dangerous for such ‘savages’ as they would become not only dependant on others but on technology which would further extend the bridge of inequality they face. He warns about the impending dangers if they are socialized ‘The more the mind was enlightened…they found various types of hatchets made of hard, sharp stones, which served to cut wood.’(Rousseau, 62) He elaborates further that ‘as long as they applied themselves exclusively to task that a single individual could do and to the arts that did not require cooperation of several hands, they lived free.’ (Rousseau, 65) These points directly counter Locke’s basis of labour and social procession through the establishment of property rights. Rousseau is realistic in his view that there is not room for everyone to thrive in such a system and the ability to be limited to the few that work hard so many others will become disadvantaged. Lastly, Rousseau’s bottom line is the preservation of freedom for members of society, however this cannot be done when there are increasing needs due to technology and cycle of dependency, resulting in class warfare because of dissatisfied individuals. As Rousseau notes ‘Emerging society gave way to the most horrible state of war; since the human race, vilified and desolated…it brought itself to the brink of its ruin.’ (Rousseau, 68) Therefore, the society loses all freedom due to the dependence and other enslavements such as technology and labour, which have brought about an increased sense of inequality.
In Conclusion, juxtaposing the various models of property put forth by both theorist are very unique to their times. In my view it Rousseau’s state of nature, absent of rational influence but preserving man’s ultimate desire for the preservation of self and others, is more accurate, or at least more clear than Locke’s interpretation. In the end, the guiding principles are quite similar. In fact, the two theories for the establishment, maintenance and protection of inequality respectively are very divergent and conflicting, ultimately fueling to the continuous debate that these two scholars participate in. The two theorists generally agree that the establishment of property is a consequence of man’s enlightenment and desire to improve his life, and leads to the establishment of laws and society to protect property. However, it is on the effect that this helps to produce inequality where the two views diverge. It is apparent that in this debate that Rousseau has the edge over Locke with his critical view of Locke’s civil society.
