Asher Sisneros

Date: September 12, 2024

Author: Asher K. Sisneros

Teacher: Tom Woods

Class: Western Civilization From 1493

John Locke was a 16th-century political philosopher who pioneered the modern understanding of property ownership and laid the groundwork for many libertarian economists like Murray N. Rothbard. Natural law—which he credited as coming from God—was the basis of his philosophical arguments. He believed the result of this common/natural law is common/natural rights; specifically, property rights. His Second Treatise on Civil Government deeply elaborates on the purpose of government, the moral justification for property ownership, and how it is properly protected. 

Before delving into John Locke’s positions on private property, it is important to specify where he believed the right of cultivation came from. His starting point on the “state of nature” seemingly contradicts the basic biblical teaching that the Triune God of the Bible gave humanity stewardship over creation, including physical land. However, Locke does not deny this. In his words, “God, by commanding to subdue [the Earth], gave authority…to appropriate.”¹ In other words, Locke acknowledges the most basic theological truth that the right of private property comes from God. He does not deny that. The Second Treatise on Civil Government is not a biblical commentary meant to analyze the question of private property from a theological point of view, though completely separating this debate from religion is both impossible and futile; rather, Locke attempts to answer this question: How should Adam’s descendants—all humanity—determine who owns what? Although God gives all humanity the right to own property, how do individuals distinguish between individual ownership? 

The first basic presupposition of Lockean philosophy is that in the state of nature, individuals live in total equality with each other. Originally, nobody owned anything. In this state of nature, there is no property ownership, civil government, or defined law. There is a natural law as dictated by God, but it is not a written civil law. Those natural laws result in natural rights. Thus, humans live perfect liberty to do as they please, so long as it does not interfere with another person’s natural rights. For example, he says life is a natural right given by God; thus, it is immoral for someone to engage in murder by unjustly taking a life because it intrudes on their natural rights. In his words, “The state of nature has a [natural law] to govern it…No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”²

However, Locke admits there is a problem or “inconvenience” with this “state of nature.” In fact, there are three major inconveniences. Firstly, there is not a commonly known written law that is binding on everyone. Secondly, there is no impartial judge; obviously, if there is a dispute between two parties, each party believes they are in the right. Thirdly, even if there were an unbiased judge to act as the intermediary between the two parties, there is no way of lawful enforcement. Thus, civil government attempts to solve these problems by:

1. Creating a universal law, 
2. Providing an unbiased judge; 
3. And having the executive power of enforcement. 

As an institution, civil government has one purpose: to define the rule of law, judge based on the rule of law, and enforce the rule of law. Anything beyond this is tyranny, and a government that cannot provide these three basic functions is useless and her citizenry has a moral right to overthrow her. Locke full-heartedly believed in this presupposition, living through the Glorious Revolution that replaced the English monarch and instituted the English Bill of Rights. As he illustrates in The Second Treatise, civil government’s only legitimacy is through the people. It is the people who come together and willingly exit the “state of nature” to establish civil government, and they do so for the protection of their natural rights. Civil government is only legitimate because of the people. Apart from popular sovereignty, she has no power. Thus, revolution is legitimate where the government is found to be delinquent in providing the rule of law, unbiasedly judging based on the rule of law, and enforcing the rule of law. 

This was the basis of his argument against absolute monarchy. Under monarchy—where the king is the lawmaker, judge, and executioner—there is no improvement from the state of nature. Sure, in disputes between individuals he might be an unbiased judge; but what about disputes against the king? Any grievances against him in his capacity as lawmaker, executioner, or citizen, are thus judged by himself. Without any form of appeal, there is no liberty, making a monarchy no better than anarchy. 

With that, a natural question arises: Sure, civil government exists to protect the natural rights of individuals, and monarchy is no improvement to anarchy, but what about property rights? What does the “state of nature” have to do with property rights? If all men live in total equality with each other in the state of nature—with none being insubordinate to the other, civilly or economically, because none own anything—where do individuals get the moral right to own property? 

The answer to this question starts with the presupposition of self-ownership. Locke argues that although individuals do not own any material property in the state of nature, they do own themselves. This statement is not a rebellion against the most basic theological truth that God owns everything. Locke acknowledges this. Although God owns everything, He gives men authority to govern themselves. Locke argues that on a human-to-human level, individuals own themselves. Perhaps it would be more theologically accurate for Locke to say on a human-to-human level, individuals steward themselves. Nevertheless, the basic point is that the first ownership/stewardship individuals receive is in their own bodies. Then it logically follows that individuals own their labor. This premise—the premise of self-ownership and thus labor ownership—is the starting point for Locke’s theory of property rights. 

As he argues, individuals become property owners when they “mix their labor” with things held in common ownership. Both of these prerequisites are necessary. The individual must (1) mix their labor with it, and (2) it must be in common ownership, i.e., not somebody else’s private property. For example, if a man walks through a forest nobody owns and sees an apple tree nobody owns, by picking the apple off the tree (i.e., mixing his labor with the apple), the apple becomes his. However, if the apple tree is in a private orchard, taking the apple is theft. Thus, Locke argues that private property is the result of mixing labor with things held in common. 

That, in essence, is the Lockean theory. Private property is an inalienable right. It is a natural right. It is a biblical right. The government exists for the sole purpose of protecting rights. There is no other function it has. Its sole mandate is to define the rule of law, judge according to the rule of law, and enforce the rule of law. To do anything less makes it useless; anything more makes it tyrannical. Both deserve one thing: revolution.

1. John Locke, The Second Treatise on Civil Government, ed. Dave Gowan (Salt Lake City, Utah: Project Gutenberg, 2003), sec. 35, file:///home/chronos/u-6089b9ea32d32a985dbeaa8333aa5ab0d96d5991/MyFiles/Downloads/The%20Project%20Gutenberg%20eBook%20of%20Second%20Treatise%20Of%20Government,%20by%20John%20Locke.mhtml
   ↩︎
2. Locke, Second Treatise, sec. 6 ↩︎