To what extent is Locke's argument concerning the state of nature and the social contract an attempt to justify private property?

Locke’s justifications for private property are often contrasted against Thomas Hobbes writings due to their fundamental differences in the possibility of private property within the state of nature. Hobbes believes that without sovereignty there can be no private property as Hobbes states “there remaines that same state of nature in which all things belong to all men and there is no place for Meum Tuum” it “belongs to the chief power to make some common rules for all men and to declare them publicly, by which every man may know what may be called his, what another’s.”, which suggests that there simply cannot be private property within a state of nature and that clearly sovereignty must be in place before that can exist whereas for Locke, although private property within the state of nature is insecure, it exists nonetheless.

Locke attempts to legitimise the possession of private property by arguing that “The labor of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”, which justifies private property by stating that when you work for something,  that item of which you worked for or made, is yours. However as this is aimed towards individual property owners, this then leads to a capitalist outreach in life which in turn would lead to a class divide. Locke demonstrates this by affirming that “Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.”, , which is declaring that whatever the servant makes or works for, belongs to the servants owners. This contradicts Locke’s fundamental suggestion that whatever someone produces, in turn becomes their private property as it shows that that property then belongs to the slave master and so acts in counter of Locke’s argument towards justifying private property.

The reference to a “slave” causes yet more disparities as the use of “slave” suggests that that individual has neither control of themselves or ownership over themselves whereas Locke states that “every man has a property in his person; this nobody has any right to but himself” which strongly reduces the justification of individual private property by contradiction. However this statement regarding self-ownership also holds more problems as Locke elsewhere suggests that man “has not liberty to destroy himself” and under government, " a man not having the power of his own life cannot by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to anyone.”, “Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life cannot give another power over it” An opinion as to why this again contradicts Locke’s argument is that as according to those statements, one “has a right to own himself but no right to destroy or enslave himself” whereas two of the key elements of ownership should encompass “exclusive use, destruction, and alienation” over one’s self.

The conception that property is insecure and consequently under threat from others, including the servant, within Locke’s state of nature indicates the requiring of a political society as “Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property” which supports Locke’s argument by justifying private property through that then being the fundamental requirement for there to be a need to create a society. In contrast to Locke’s purpose of authority, Jean Jacques Rousseau claims that “the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” and so political authority is not then created to protect private property, but to ensure greater equality and unity. Hobbes on the other hand reasons that authority is required in order to impose law and order over an otherwise nature of “perpetual war”. To overcome such a war and establish a society, Hobbes says that they must enter into a contract, “more than Consent, or Concord”.

For Locke, a legitimate rule must be by the agreed consent of the people. This is hugely important because for such a government or alternative authority to exist, the people must give up many of their rights within their freedom in order to receive protection from the authority in order to make their private property secure. The issue here for the authority is the definition of consent, in that Locke saw there as being two types of consent, “express” consent, whereby those that consent enter into it with “positive engagement, and express promise and compact” which was the consent that was to be looked for within a strong society with security for all as it meant that the actions of the authority take on behalf of the people, were wholeheartedly supported. Whereas the second type of consent, “tacit” consent, proves to be problematic not in the short term where the individual is simply seeking security for their private property “whether this his possession be of land to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week”, but in the long term and for those that are born into society not having given express consent, "every Man, that hath any Possession, or Enjoyment, of any part of  the Dominions of any Government, doth thereby give his tacit Consent, and is as far forth  obliged to  Obedience to  the Laws of that Government” and so those that live within this mutually consenting society and require security of private property tacit or express consent is given which is Locke’s further justification of the importance of private property within the social contract and developing society. For governments to become illegitimate they must have lost the express consent of the people which would lead to resistance and the breakdown of the social contract and the rife insecurity over private property.

Locke also placed limitations on the appropriations of the earth’s produce as well as on land in order to prevent any individual taking too much. As MacPherson points out, “A man is entitled by these arguments to appropriate only as much as leaves ‘enough and as good’ for others, ‘as much as he can use the product of’, and as much as he has mixed his labour with”. This ensured that within the state of nature there was never a lack of produce or land and allowed for equality as long as there was no prejudice that could lead to anyone not having what they needed.

Overall I believe that, to a large extent, Locke managed to justify private property through his idea that the core factor that leads to the creation of society from Locke’s state of nature is the strong insecurity regarding private property due to paranoia in an authority less environment. Supported by the idea that “every man has a property in his person; this nobody has any right to but himself” the argument surrounding the use of slavery proves here to be insignificant in that either way, the lead from a state of nature to the formation of the social contract relies heavily on a justified private property.

Bibliography

• Day,J. “Locke on Property” (The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 64, History of Philosophy Number (Jul.,1966), pp. 207-22)
• Hobbes “De Cive” ( London; Blackmask Online, 2000) P34
• Hobbes, “Leviathan”. (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1991)
• Locke. “An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government." IN “Two Treatises of Government” (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1967.)
• MacPherson. “The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism”. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1962)
• McAteer "The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713)." (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 28 July 2011,  Nov 11 2011)
• Riley, J. "Liberalism & Conservatism." (Regis University. 1990,  Nov 11 2011)
• Rousseau, J. “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality”. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009)
• "The Philosophies Of Locke And Rousseau." (Essortment Articles.  Nov 15 2011)
• "Thomas Hobbes - English Philosopher - Biography." (The European Graduate School,  , Nov 15 2011)

---