Theory of Private Property - Essay Example

Introduction Private property’ refers to the system that allocates certain objects specially pieces of land to individuals to use and administer as they please, to the exclusion of other individuals and any comprehensive control by society. Philosophers have often argued that private property is necessary for the ethical progress of the individual and for the creation of a social environment where people can prosper as free and conscientious agents. Original Acquisition The origin of private property and its legitimacy is a much debated issue. Rousseau, believed in the “right of first claimant” i.e. at the most fundamental level, an individual can come to own property by being the first one there. This is called original acquisition. Yet this is too simplistic an explanation to explain the right to private property. John Locke proposes a different approach to an individual’s right to private property. According to Locke, mankind has three natural rights: a right to life, liberty, and property. An important corollary of the natural rights is the right to private property. This right to property gives rise to the theory of original acquisition, i.e. the right to acquire property that has been previously un-owned. Locke claims that a man earns ownership over a natural resource when he mixes his labor with it “one may only appropriate property through ones own labor” (Locke, 1995). For example, the cultivated field is worth more than the virgin grassland specifically because I have labored in plowing it; so even if the grassland was held in common by all, the plowed field is mine He also insisted that an individual must not simply mix his labor with property to gain rights to it; he must also add value to the object in order to justifiably own it, i.e. the difference labor makes is in value. Locke argues that natural resources in their original form have little value. He estimates that 99% of the utility of things is produced by labor rather than by nature. (Political Philosophy, no date) Locke tempered his theory of acquisition with the proviso that though every appropriation of property is a reduction of anothers rights to it, it is acceptable as long as we “leave enough and as good for others.” (Locke, 1995) i.e. the acquisition of property does not make anyone worse off than they would have been without any private property. Another addition to this proviso is that there is no spoilage of resources stipulating that only those who will use and maintain a resource may claim ownership, “one may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils” (Locke, 1995) Analysis Original acquisition theory proceeds on the basis that the first individual user of a natural resource, for example a piece of land, is different from all others in that he did not have to dislodge anyone else in order to take ownership. It did not particularly matter in what manner he took control of it, or what sort of use he made of it: what matters was that he began acting as its proprietor without dispossessing anyone else. Although Locke accepted the logic of original acquisition, it did matter for him that the land was farmed or used productively in one way or another. Locke insisted that mixing of labor was the ground for primal ownership. Though the original tenant does not actually dispossess anyone, still his acquisition may wrong the welfare of others which would refute the Lockean proviso of “enough and as good left in common” Therefore, to justify the right to property Locke emphasizes that appropriation by productive labor actually augmented the amount of produce available in society for others (Waldron, 2008). Criticism Locke’s theory of property rights has some basic moral flaws in it. Although seemingly based on the laws of nature and thus presenting itself as a legitimate and just theory, it ignores the rights of the poor and the non-agricultural population. Locke argues for the rights of the landowners’ vis-à-vis the government; he makes no mention of the serf who tills the land. He simply ignores the poor as irrelevant to society. Lockes theory of property “is not that the existence of private property serves the public good, but rather that rights of private property are among the rights that men bring with them into political society and for whose protection political society is set-up” (Waldon, p.137) The same flaw can be seen in the case of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia. Locke maintains that justification of property is based upon labor. He first mitigates the Native Americans right to own the crop they pick and the animals they hunt, and yet justifies the forced appropriation of their land based upon their un-industrious waste of the land. Because the natives did not farm the land or stake individual ownership in the manner of Europeans, he denied them any right to it. He justified the colonialist expansion with two arguments: “property is based upon labor, and value is to be found in quantity and industriousness. It is therefore right that the Europeans take the wasted land from the natives, work upon it and claim it as their own.” (Chance, no date) This theory was also adopted by the English in their colonization of Australia. The Aborigines were a non-farming, nomadic people dependent on nature for their sustenance, thus according to Lockean theory appropriation of their land was justified as they were wasting the potential of the land. Conclusion Lockes theory of property was based upon the premise that there would always be plenty to go around yet nowadays there is a scarcity of available resources with some individuals or societies having plenty whereas others are on the constant brink of starvation. Thus, those who are denied access to property and wealth do have a legitimate objection to appropriation of their rights. For example the Africans as a nation and people are suffering from lack of basic necessities of life yet the Western world has a surplus of resources. Some areas of the earth are overpopulated whereas others are under populated. If Locke’s theory of right to private property is applied then there would be no welfare state and as history has already witnessed there would be a gross violation of human rights. The genocide of Native American tribes was condoned by Locke in the name of procuring land for industrious use by Europeans. Lockean theory makes no proviso for the underpaid daily wage earner who sells his labor or for the people who have cultures and systems that are different from Western beliefs. Thus Locke’s defense of right to private property is a flawed theory that is only partially acceptable in contemporary society. Bibliography Chance, Tom (no date) Lockes political philosophy http://tom.acrewoods.net/research/philosophy/classics/locke Locke, John (1955) Of Civil Government -- Second Treatise, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company Political Philosophy .Info, (no date) The Added-Value Argument http://www.politicalphilosophy.info/addedvalue.html Waldon, (1988) The Right to Private Property, pg.137 Waldron, Jeremy,(2004) "Property", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), . Read More