Introduction
One of the most confounding concepts in the discipline of political theory is the issue of property. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle dedicate a large part of their works to speculations about the state of nature and property ownership. However, a comprehensive theoretical exploration of the concept of private property ownership is credited to relatively modern philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. The writings of Locke and Rousseau on property ownership are quite fascinating to compare. Both philosophers portray the early stages of man in what they refer to as the State of Nature. This paper takes a critical look at Rousseau’s conceptualization of private property and the state in relation to Locke’s works on the subject.
Origins of Property in the State of Nature
According to Locke, man is driven out of his primitive state by his desire to satisfy his needs. He believes that man is able to acquire only the basic essentials while in the primitive state. John Locke perceives the issue of property acquisition from the standpoint of land. He believes that land increases in value and productivity due to cultivation. Therefore, labor is the foundation on which one can claim property ownership. If you work tilling land, then the land belongs to you while the one who constructs a house owns the house. He proposes certain principles, which must be adhered to for ownership of land and property to be permissible. He asserts that man must not harvest from nature in excess of what he can use. When accumulating property, man must ensure that there is enough left to satisfy the needs of others.
In an apparent response to Locke’s ideas on the origin of private property, Rousseau maint...
... middle of paper ...
...e. Their views on private property lead us to the relationship between property ownership and the legitimacy of government. From the above arguments, it is evident that Rousseau’s theory is in response to Locke.
Works Cited
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse On the Origin of Inequality , Minneapolis: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC., 2007. Print.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government, USA: Maestro Reprints, 2012. Print.
Fetherston, Tony. Becoming an Effective Teacher, South Melbourne, Victoria: Thomson Learning, 2007. Print.
Works Cited
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse On the Origin of Inequality , Minneapolis: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC., 2007. Print.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government, USA: Maestro Reprints, 2012. Print.
Fetherston, Tony. Becoming an Effective Teacher, South Melbourne, Victoria: Thomson Learning, 2007. Print.
...s his argument by emphasizing the absolute reason on why property is solely for the use to produce goods and provide services by farming one’s land or building infrastructures; nevertheless the overuse of one’s land exhibits what Locke calls waste, whereas the consumption of goods for the use of trade can result in bartering and wealth. The introduction of wealth creates the motivation for people feel compelled to protect their wealth which leads us back to the concept of entering into a civil or political society for security. Locke believes that civil and political society can ensure the stability, security, and social structure of any given society; but he points out that if the government becomes a tyranny or corrupt only than shall the populace exercise their right to question the authority and overthrow if needed.
Throughout history, there has been abundant ways in where philosophers try to change people’s perspective on certain topics. One of the well known men was John Locke; he was an English philosopher (1632-1704) who had different positive views regarding human nature. In addition, Locke strongly believed in natural rights of life, liberty, & property, and thought that all humans are all the same and that we are all born free, to do what we all desire without having to ask for permission to anyone, and also equal which meant that no none is to have no natural or political authority over one another. Thus, Locke believes that we are all born with three natural rights. He also held the belief that government has a moral obligation to guarantee
First, Locke believes that everyone has the opportunity to cultivate the land that they own, which ideally is a proportionate share of the surrounding environment, and nothing more (Locke, Sec. 36). Locke’s theory of property is not just relative to physical entities, it can be an intellectual entity as well. An individual may have certain experiences and knowledge, develop theories and come to their own conclusions. Publishing said works are seen as property in the eyes of Locke as well. Another strength would be the logic of Locke’s argument, if you input your labour, that commodity becomes your own. Truth of this can be seen in section 33 of Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, when Locke suggests that labour increases the value of land exponentially because when people own land themselves, they are more likely to increase the productivity of that land. According to Locke, the true value of land does not stem from the land, rather the labour invested in it. Locke’s theory however, does not take into account the processes in which someone becomes an owner. One of the main stances Locke outlines in his theory of property is that he equates property to being a natural right. Locke deems the right to private property to be equally important as life and liberty, however they cannot be
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
In his “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau attributes the foundation of moral inequalities, as a separate entity from the “natural” physical inequalities, which exist between only between men in a civilised society. Rousseau argues that the need to strive for excellence is one of man’s principle features and is responsible for the ills of society. This paper will argue that Rousseau is justified in his argument that the characteristic of perfectibility, as per his own definition, is the cause of the detriments in his civilised society.
In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the poor.
...w that property should belong to anyone who has the power to possess it. The overall main criticism against Locke is that he is a wishful thinker instead of a critical thinker.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “The Social Contract”. Modern Political Thought, Second Edition. Ed. David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2008. 427-487.
Locke theorizeds extensively on property, privatization, and the means an individual can use for increasing his property. Initially, in the state of nature, man did not own property in the form of resources or land. All fruits of the earth were for the use of all men,“and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state” (Locke 353). In this state, people could appropriate only what they could make use of. It was unfair for one person to take more than he could use because some of that natural commodity would go to waste unless another man might have made use of it for his own benefit (360). Locke felt that God gave the bounties of nature to the people of earth and they, by default, should treat these bounties rationally. This rationalistic theory discourages waste.
Rousseau and Nozick naturally have two opposite perspectives on property because their political views appearing on different parts of the ideological spectrum. Rousseau has negative and critical views of property in A Discourse on Inequality and Nozick allows for property if it does not violate the entitlement theory. Rousseau beholds property as the commencement of the ills of man. He writes, “to the right of property, the elimination of equality was followed by the most terrible disorder.” Property, an unnatural institution, conceives abundant complications, and natural inequalities begin to merge into moral inequalities. With the conception of early property through labour, issues of domination of the poor by property owners, who are the biologically stronger individuals, arise with the division of land. The rules of justice proceed from the division of land. There is an extreme imbalance between the type of work that one is capable of due to natural inequalities, and “it is thus that natural inequality merges imperceptibly with inequality of ranks” . It is
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live