John Locke: Property & the entry into society PHIL 2345: 2008-09

Appropriation is good ‘…he who appropriates land to himself by his labour, does not lessen, but increase the common stock of mankind: for the provisions serving to the support of human life, produced by one acre of inclosed and cultivated land, are…ten times more than those which are yielded by an acre of land of an equal richness lying waste in common’ (5.37).

This explains why ‘America’ is poor ‘There cannot be a clearer demonstration of any thing, than several nations of the Americans are of this, who are rich in land, and poor in all the comforts of life…for want of improving it by labour’ (5.41). Who are these ‘Americans’? What is their way of life? Why is England is rich (5.37)? What is England’s secret?

Locke’s argument for inequality Labour creates title to land Uncultivated land = waste; may be used by another (squatters’ rights) Money is based on consent; Enables accumulation beyond subsistence level Property is unequally distributed: Earth given to industrious and rational (5.34) Value comes from labour (5.50) Labour includes that of employees: ‘The turfs my servant has cut’ (5.28).

Locke’s argument for inequality ‘In the beginning all the world was America’ (5.49); Institution of money: ‘a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of’ (5.50); Compacts and agreements regulated property; Population increases: ‘…it is plain, that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth’ (emph. orig.; 5.50).

Summary of Locke’s tenets Labour theory of value Prohibition against waste/spoilage Property Cash nexus (money/means of exchange) Government to protect all this. Are you satisfied? Is this what gov’t should do?

Question In Locke’s state of nature, without society, without money, people can have private property by adding their own labor to a certain property (e.g. land). That property then becomes private property. The only restriction is people may not own more than they can use. But once money is created and accepted, they can store up the purchasing power by selling perishable goods and keeping money as a way of storing up value. They can therefore labor and own more than they can use. Does this imply that people can labor and own however much they want, on the condition that the goods can be sold and transferred into money, so that the goods will not go to waste?

Locke’s view of human-nature relationship It’s not right to waste land b/c we are industrious and rational—God-given attributes (34); Land should be cultivated (40): Cash crops: tobacco, sugar (cultivated by slaves); Staple crops: wheat, barley [rice]; “…of the products of the earth useful to the life of man nine tenths are the effects of labour”; “…in most of them ninety-nine hundredths are wholly to be put on the account of labour” (40).

What about country parks? Ecosystems? Biodiversity? Are they ‘waste’?

Camellia sinensis: only 1%? Biodiversity only 1%?

Why is civil society needed? Don’t we already have everything we need? Land Property (labour theory of value) Crops Agreements, contracts, treaties b/w a Swiss and and Indian! No, b/c some will choose to put themselves in the state of war w/ others; Violate the law of nature—steal property and cause injury.

Motives to enter civil society ‘…the enjoyment of the property he has in this state [of nature] is very unsafe, very unsecure’; ‘This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however, free, is full of fears and continual dangers’ (123); ‘Thus mankind…are quickly driven into society’ (emph. added; 127); ‘The great and chief end…of men’s uniting into common-wealths…is the preservation of their property’ (124).

Family--a compact? No! (ch. 7) ‘God having made man such a creature, that…it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society…(77). Conjugal bonds: last as long as it takes to raise young: herbivorous vs carnivorous (hunting) animals Radical doctrine: husband is not an absolute monarch, wife may assert her will (82-3)! Master-servant also not a compact, b/c temporary (85); Authority of pater familias (Latin) is limited by time and extent (86): It is not legislative (law-making) rule w/ power of life/death.

The Compact Make a compact: ‘to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living…in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it’ (95). Duress? Others ‘left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature’ (95). Majority rule: ‘And thus every man…puts himself under an obligation…to submit to the determination of the majority…or else this original compact…would signify nothing…’ (97).

Tacit consent We may not be one of those who agree to the original compact How do we actually consent? At birth we have no nationality (118); We tacitly consent by owning ‘possessions’ or enjoying ‘any part of the dominions of any government’ (119); I own a flat so I consent tacitly to the laws of H.K. I can sell my property and leave, thereby withdrawing my tacit consent; Is this the case in most states today?

Question What are the options for a new-born baby who passively utilizes the medical resources of the hospital in an already established civil society, in choosing his own state (whether to stay in the state of nature or war or civil society), given that he has, according to Locke, already joined the civil society by tacit consent? Does his subjective will to join/not join civil society matter if he has already ‘agreed’ to join by his tacit consent?