John Locke and Commercial Capitalism
Essay Preview: John Locke and Commercial Capitalism
Report this essay
Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Lockes theory of property and how it is not anything other than a “thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism.” This statement is defended through Lockes personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.
Locke did not write in a vacuum. His background and interests influenced his writing in the Second Treatise of Government. Lockes theories revolve heavily around the acquisition of property. Locke, himself, came from an affluent family than and he was a part of the Whig movement. It would have been in Lockes best interest to promote a philosophy that emphasized the importance of the property in a civil society.
John Locke was born in 1632 to a prosperous family on a modest estate. He was educated at the prestigious Westminster School in London and received a bachelors and masters degree at Oxford University. His studies were concentrated on philosophy and medicine. After leaving Oxford he became friends with the first Earl of Shaftesbury, which led him into politics. Shaftesbury the leader of the Whig movement had a great influence on Locke. The Whig movement was a faction that supported the exclusion of James II and VII from the thrones of England, Ireland, and Scotland (wikipedia). The Whigs were often associated with the great noble houses and wealthy merchants. By coming from a wealthy family he would naturally want to defend the status he has come from. Also, by associating with the Whig party, this further emphasizes the importance of wealth and politics.
Locke in his Second Treatise of Government argues how common and private property came about. He begins with the idea that God did not give absolute powers or rights of the world to Adam. Therefore Adams heirs do not have any rights, and if they did it would be impossible to determine his heirs today (Locke Ч1). In other words, since no one owns the world, everyone has equal rights to the use of the land. Locke argues that,
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. And though all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature, 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 Ч26).
Locke claims that all things in the natural state belong to everyone and is considered common property. In order to have any use of common property, one must be able to make it their own. Locke states, “there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man” (Locke, Ч26). Thus, this leads us to the theory of private property.
Using an example of fruit, Locke introduces his theory of property. All people have two private possessions; one is our own body and the other are the products using the labour of our body (Locke, Ч27). If labour is exerted then “it by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for other (Locke, Ч27). He uses the example of apples to explain his theory. Once a person picks an apple it becomes their private property, because he exerted his energy in picking it. Also, if one person sells his labour to another he becomes property of that person, “Ðthe turfs my servant has cutÐ become my property” (Locke Ч20).
Locke also discusses the limitations on private property. One must leave enough for others and take only as much as one can use (Locke, Ч33). He then applies this to acquiring land. Locke writes,
As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right, to say every body else has an equal title to it; and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankindÐ.God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour” (Locke, Ч32).
Even though there are limitations, this paragraph shows how one can acquire a significant amount of private property. If one is extremely efficient and productive there will be a surplus of products that can be used. Since it is a sin to let products go to waste, Locke creates a system of barter. However a system of barter is not an efficient system. The value of items would be hard to determine. Therefore, Locke suggests a monetary system with “a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, should be worth a great piece of flesh,” (Locke Ч37). Gold is not something that can rot; therefore if there was a money system implemented the right to private property could be unlimited. This is Lockes defense against a common critique of capitalism, gross inequalities of wealth which are common in capitalistic systems.
According to www.wikipedia.org, “Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit. Decisions regarding investment are made privately and control of production and distribution is primarily in the hands of companies acting in its own interests.” As for the bourgeois,