Locke, labour and property
In particular with his Two Treatises of Government (1690 [2008]), Locke is traditionally seen as one of the founders of political liberalism. Indeed, his rejection of absolutism and his praise of representative government proceeds from man’s natural liberty and natural equality.
Locke (1690 [2008], s. 22: 283, original emphasis) writes: “the Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man, but to have only the Law of Nature for his rule”. The law of nature is thus a key element in Locke since it defines the rights and the duties of every man in the state of nature. This state is not without law, in which everyone could pursue his own ends without paying attention to others. On the contrary, each man has not only to preserve his life, freedom and possessions, but others’ as well. Therefore, if men who are in the state of nature have the duty to obey the law of nature, they have as well the freedom to contravene it but must be punished in consequence. But Locke stresses that this “right to punish the offender” could go too far and lead to “confusion” and “disorder”: “it is unreasonable for Men to be Judges in their own Cases... Self-love will make Men partial to themselves and their Friends. And on the other side, that Ill Nature, Passion and Revenge will carry them too far in punishing others” (ibid.: s. 13: 275). The solution proposed by Locke to alleviate the drawbacks of the state of nature is the constitution of a civil government. It is common to stress that Locke’s description of the drawbacks of the state of nature - which leads to the state of war - has close links with Hobbes’s “war of everyone against everyone”. However, while Locke pleads for a civil government, which guarantees freedom and equality to everyone, Thomas Hobbes follows a very different path in Leviathan (1651 [1996]). According to Locke, the civil government must respect freedom, security and equality.In addition to the protection of these three natural rights the civil government has to guarantee a fourth one: private property, which proceeds as well from the law of nature. At the beginning, property is common since “God... hath given the World to Men in common” (Locke 1690 [2008], s. 26: 286) but thanks to their work human beings are capable of translating this common property into a private one. Here lies one of the most original points of Locke’s thought: by considering private property as a natural right Locke based its justification on labour:
though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour 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 Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property... For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others. (Ibid.: s. 27: 287-8)
You can clearly observe here that labour (and thus the labourer who enjoys the property of his own labour) plays a key role in Locke, since it makes it possible to distinguish between the things which are held in common and those which belong to the labourer. By “removing them out of that common state” (ibid.: s. 28: 289, original emphasis), the labourer acquires the right to own them. Locke thus states two major ideas: on the one hand, the property right is natural, it does not depend on someone else’s or civil government’s consent; on the other hand, the relationship between human beings and nature is defined through labour: men are not political animals, they are owners and labourers.
Further, at first sight Locke establishes some limits to property rights: men could not take more than their shares - what they could use, eat, drink... before it goes bad - the rest belongs to others. It should be noted that these limits are also valid for the property of the land: “the chief matter of Property being... the Earth it self’ (ibid.: s. 32: 290, original emphasis). However, with the invention of money Locke remarks that these limits do not apply anymore. By consent, men could amass wealth. At the same time, Locke seems to regret this situation but accepts its consequences, since it comes from a mutual agreement. Thus the subsequent inequalities could not be corrected. Finally, even if there is still some doubt about the way Locke sees the enlargement of somebody’s possessions beyond his personal needs thanks to money, it remains that the philosopher shed light on labour and labourers as producers of value. This is a major step towards freedom for all.