Isaac Freedman Freedman The Natural Law L aw and the Acquisition and Accumulation of Property John John Locke, Locke, in the Second Treatise on Government , argues that the fundamental purpose of government is to protect and enforce property rights. hen a government fails to fulfill that purpose, it is not legitimate and the people peop le governed gove rned !y it have a right to remove it from power and esta!lish another government. "overnments do not create the rights that they protect# these rights, what Locke considers natural rights, are rooted in nature. They e$ist when a government is in power and after it is dis!anded. %ow does man come to have these rights& 'n particular, how do men come to own goods ( property ( which the government is supposed to protect& And, finally, if governments protect these goods, then who or what governs their acquisition and accumulation& This paper addresses Locke)s view on these questions. ' offer insight on different different components of Locke)s thought, including the difference !etween property acquisition and the origination of civil society as well as the effect of the invention of money. As we will see, the law of nature governs !oth property origination and all forms of property accumulation. PROPERTY AND THE NATURAL LAW
*irst and foremost in Locke)s argument is the concept of the state of nature. %e argues that man is in this state when he does not live under a government. There is perfect freedom and perfect equality. The law of nature, defined !y reason, governs the state of nature. 't +o!liges everyone and teaches all mankind that !eing all equal and independent no one ought to harm another in his life, health, li!erty or possessions.- /0 These are what Locke considers natural rights, and !eside the right to property, he does not derive them from other rights. %e uses the right of life to 1ustify the right of property. %e argues, +men, !eing once !orn, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their su!sistence.- 230 %e appropriates goods from nature so that he can survive. This need to appropriate to survive 1ustifies the right to own property.
4ut what is Locke)s definition of property& %e provides a definition of property as something that +no!ody has any right to !ut himself.- 250 't includes one)s !ody, la!or, and possessions. 6an comes to own property when he acts on that good ( i.e. when his la!or is mi$ed with the good. %is premises are the following7 (1) Every man’s person is his own property. (2) Every man’s labor is the property o his own person. (!) That with which a person’s labor has been "oined is the man’s own property. 't is first important to note that in this argument there are three separate components of a human ( the man himself, his person or !ody, and his la!or. Locke)s takes premise 80 as a given !ased on the theory of natural rights, which argues +every man has a property in his own person.- 890 The connection !etween 20 and 80 incorporates the idea of control. La!or is an act e$erting energy. :our !ody e$erts this energy, and !ecause you own your !ody, you own what your !ody has e$erted.
'n simpler terms, what you do is yours. Although ;0 is more
complicated, it is the most critical premise in the argument. The mi$ing of la!or with a good held in common, makes that good yours < it is individuali=ed. The point is that la!or, something that according to our natural rights is properly ours, effects a change in the status of something that was not ours prior. 't !ecomes ours !ecause it contains o#r la!or. >r, in Locke)s words, +The labo#r that was mine, removing ?goods@ out of that common state they were in, hath i$ed my property in them.- 20 The infusion of la!or into the good is the pivotal moment in which a good moves from the common to the private, and !ecomes one)s own. 'n fact, the creation of property, involves only one)s own la!or. 't does not involve, nor does it require, the consent of other men. Bequiring the consent of others would create a world in which no man could farm crops, cultivate land, or consume goods, since in midst of gathering it from others, man would find it nearly impossi!le to survive. Property originates when a man
2
com!ines his la!or with the good. 't is not a social process. 't is an unsocial process. 't is for the good of one)s own !eing, and it is done !y one)s own self. That is not to say property would e$ist in a vacuum. The concept of property is naturally a social concept# it delineates what one man owns, and what another does not. 6en are not self
;
only to the e$tent that the accumulation of that property does not violate the natural law. %is argument ( which suggests that as one mi$es la!or with goods, those goods !ecome one)s own ( at first seems to suggest that the accumulation of property is only constrained !y the amount one can la!or. 4ut Locke argues that the law of nature itself limits property accumulation. +As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life !efore it spoils, so much he may !y his la!our fi$ a property in7 what is !eyond this, is more than his share, and !elongs to others.- ;80 6an has a right to own that which he uses, !ut he does not have a right to own what is accumulated !eyond what he uses. This e$cess accumulated property is wasteful and deprives other men of the opportunity to accumulate that property. "oods acquired !ut not used, such as meat that perishes in one)s possession or fruit that rots !efore it is had, are violate the law of nature. Duch a man is +lia!le to !e punished# he invaded his neigh!or)s share, for he had no right, farther than his use called for any of them.- ;50 :ou have a right to claim that which you need as your own, !ut nothing !eyond that. Locke uses the same argument to consider land7 man has a right to the land he cultivates, !ut +if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on the ground, or the fruit of his planting perished without gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithstanding his enclosure, was still to !e looked on as waste, and might !e the possession of any other.- ;E0 Thus, goods that you take which you cannot use and land that you claim which you do not cultivate is not only not yours, !ut other men have the right to claim it for their own use. *inally, man may accumulate property !eyond which he directly uses, however, if that property is used to trade for goods he ends up using either at the present, or in the future if they are less perisha!le. 4ut how does Locke view money, which does not perish& The invention of money, and the fact that it is a non
F
property acquisition ( one that he manages to introduce !ut not address. 4ecause money is +!oth lasting and scarce,- it seemingly avoids violating the spoilage constraint inherent in the law of nature. F90 6an may +fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, !y receiving in e$change for the surplus gold and silver, which may !e hoarded up without in1ury to any one# these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands of the possessor.- 30. To Locke, the invention of money +!y a tacit and voluntary consent- indicates that, +men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth.- 30 The most industrious accumulate an unlimited amount of property !y acquiring perisha!le forms of property or land and e$changing it for money. The law of nature appears to !e inapplica!le. ' argue, in line with the entirety of Locke)s thought that, rather than the money causing the limits in the law of nature on property accumulation to !e useless, the law of nature applies to it as well. To e$plain this, let us start !y assuming that Locke would have no qualms agreeing with the idea that !ased on the la!or theory of property acquisition, there will !e an unequal distri!ution of property. The more industrious and intelligent naturally will accumulate more property than others, and it is rightfully theirs. 'f this property is money, however, which as a store of value is inherently non
3
or tract of land. Property accumulation increases +the common stock of mankind7 for the provisions serving to the support of human life, produced !y one acre of inclosed and cultivated land are ten times more than those which are yielded !y an acre of land of an equal richness lying waste in common.- ;50 %se is required in ownership. To the e$tent that land can either !e cultivated or uncultivated, #sed or not #sed , accumulated money can !e invested or not invested & #sed or not #sed. Cultivated land adds to the !etterment of mankind. 'nvestment in !oth the social and economic form, for e$ample donating to charity or providing loans respectively, adds to the !etterment of mankind. The man who accumulates disproportionate amounts of wealth has an o!ligation to invest that money, for the !etterment of others. The man who sits on e$or!itant stores of money without responsi!ly doing anything with it violates the natural law. %e is not responsi!ly #sin' that money. A man spending money on a lavish house, car and other material goods, purely for himself and not for the !etterment of mankind, no longer has a right to that money. 't goes !ack to the commons. CONCLUSION
The law of nature governs the origination of property and limits its accumulation. hile the origination of civil society requires consent !etween men, property acquisition is natural and does not require the consent of others. 6an accumulates property when he mi$es his la!or with something held in common. According to the law of nature, he may accumulate property until the point at which that which he acquires is unused, uncultivated, or perishes. The invention of money and its imperisha!ility, however, does not render the law of nature inapplica!le and useless. 6oney can also !e used or not used and it is this distinction that ena!les the law of nature to govern the accumulation of money as property as well. 6en must invest their money for the general !etterment of mankind.
/
