Locke argued that in the ‘natural state’ the human original condition, every person had an equal right to ownership and use of natural resources that were provided by the “spontaneous hand of nature” (Locke, 2005, sect. 25). The earth was commonly owned; however, resources are not useful for human survival and utility unless they can be appropriated for personal gain. The key question is how to transition from unowned resources to private ownership in a morally justifiable way that a person can legitimately claim exclusive right to a resource? Locke suggests that people inherently have ownership of themselves, including body, skills, and capacity. Locke sought to provide a rationale to ownership rights through an appeal to the transformational influence of human agency over land.
The answer to ownership that Locke identifies is that individual acquisition of property is justified by the labor put into it, “the labour of his body and the work of his hands… are properly his” (Locke, 2005, sect. 27). Thus, the labor mixture argument refers to a ‘mixing’ function of sort which suggests that by laboring property provides a claim of acquisition to it. Since something that an individual owns, such as time, skill, capacity is attached to the object of property. Therefore, removing property from the labourer’s control violates their rights; no one should be able to do. This is further supported by the Lockean proviso that if the individual only takes what is necessary and leaves resources for others; they maintain the right to the private property as written, “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others” (Locke, 2005, sect. 27). This was an effort by Locke to place restrictions on the labor-based acquisition of property in a world and society where resources are limited.
However, later on in the Second Treatise, Locke provides a slightly different interpretation of the concept of labor mixture which can be considered a counterargument. Locke introduces something known as the Value Increase Argument; it suggests that land without labor has little value as it cannot produce anything without being tended to. Therefore, the most value from farmed land; the private property which is so essential to the labour mixture argument; comes from the value of labor. It is a quasi-Marxian interpretation of labor as a value-adding activity. However, the value created is not part of the common property; and an individual is only entitled to the value that they create. Locke’s argument justifies the acquisition of the result of labor; but not the land itself; it would not justify the right to private property in the sense that it can be transferred as wished. Nozick greatly criticized Locke’s proviso; potentially taking the theory out of philosophical realm into practical context. Nozick argued, “Why does mixing one’s labor with something make one the owner of it? Perhaps because one owns one’s labor, and so one comes to own a previously unowned thing that becomes permeated with what one owns” (Nozick, 1974, p. 174). If Locke’s premise is followed to the letter; it would create a backward effect that leads to the abandonment of the initial acquisition. This delves into the concept of scarcity, criticizing the limitations placed by Locke. It does not necessarily matter if the land is scarce currently; but the possibility of it being scare renders the argument of labour mixture inapplicable. The process of private acquisition as described by Locke should not begin if there is scarcity of property, which in a real world, there will be.
References
Locke, J. (2005). Second treatise of government. Web.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books Inc. Web.