actually, what Locke said was:
The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests. . . . .Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.
John Locke - A Letter Concerning Toleration
note, please, CIVIL interests of a Commonwealth., those interests that include himself and all those in his community, a 'Commonwealth' being a social arrangement predicated on the well being of all its members, the 'Common Weal'. I particularly like that "indolence of body" part... something i excel at.
he goes to some extent to explain himself in his Second Treatise On Civil Government in the section On Property. In discussing the origins of private property before civilization and money messed everything up:
... 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.
now, that seems clear enough, dunnit? but... of course, as the opening ellipses suggests... i left something out. the above paragraph begins..
God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being.
Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet...
the earth and its resources belong to all of us, none more than another. People earn the right to claim it by working it and developing it and producing from it what they, themselves, need. There are two qualifying predicates, though, that a man take no more than he can use without waste
It will perhaps be objected to this, that...any one may ingross (ie "acquire") as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of nature, that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too..... how far has he given it us? As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life....whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others.
THAT is the second predicate a man may not own so much as to deprive any other what he or she has the same rightful claim to. as long as there is plenty for everyone this was not a problem
Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land... prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use.
but... that is no longer true. is it? what determines the rightfulness of claiming property now? what is the role of government in addressing that question? it is not the individual right to property that, according to Locke, obliges civil government, but the scarcity of such property. Civil government's role is to mediate the availability of resources with the need for them.
in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.
again, we return to the notion of commons, our rights to claim them, and our obligation to share them
Whether we consider natural reason...or revelation...it is very clear, that God...has given the earth ... to mankind in common... in the beginning, before the desire of having more than man needed had altered the intrinsic value of things
hes says this NOT as a denial of the legitimacy of private property, but in search of its defense. The principle of 'private property' is dependent upon that of 'commons', without which, there would be nothing to claim
We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use.
so simple and clear... i would love to have had the opportunity to having out with m. Locke in his favorite pub... have a few jars.Why do people have such difficulty in accepting ideas so obvious? well, because he does not stop there.
the right to accumulate property greater than you need for your own well being is dependent on there being sufficient for others to acquire through their own efforts and in their own interests. He draws a comparison, again, of land as property and water which was already recognized as a 'commons' belonging to no individual.
"
the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same." where there is enough. where there is not enough, where everything is owned already or one takes more than he needs and deprives others "
he took more than his share, and robbed others. ...it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of."
no, property is not theft, excess in the face of need is theft.
Abstract possession, money, changes the essential nature of property. With money a man owns land he does not himself "improve", that bears the fruit of the labor of others. Abstract possession allowed man to abrogate his tacit agreement ("compact") with others and to reject the laws of nature (and god) to own more than he could ever use and in so doing, deprive others of what they have a right to claim.
geo.
