Introduction
The origins of land ownership, property, and the ability to claim something as belonging to a particular individual and not all people is a disputable topic. In The Second Discourse, Rousseau critiques Locke’s approach to viewing ownership of land. Locke’s view on the property is based on the idea that the first person who claimed the land to be theirs is the initiator of modern civilization. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that this argument is not true since the first person to argue that everything on Earth belongs to all people would eliminate this approach to property ownership. In contrast, the social agreement between people is what regulates ownership rights. Locke’s approach to the ownership of property is valid because it is grounded in the natural law theory and the fact that each individual has an indisputable right to control their body.
Rousseau’s Criticism
Rousseau did not believe that the achievements of civilization are the result of accidents or actions of one individual. According to Rousseau, “among all the nations of the world, the progress of the mind has been precisely proportionate to the needs received by peoples from nature or to those needs to which circumstances have subjected them” (46). Hence, people’s achievements such as technology, industry, or even language arise from their need, which can be to produce clothes, have food, or merely name objects around them. Moreover, Rousseau argues that the people of the north have more inclinations to industrialization when compared to those living in the south (46). The reason for this is the need and circumstances that push people to explore and create new things.
People’s actions are a result of their interests and needs, in Rousseau’s view. For example, nations that reside in lands with fertile soils do not necessarily succeed as advanced agricultural societies. On the other hand, countries that have a need to develop agriculture to provide food for themselves can achieve this even on infertile land. However, the people’s achievements and their ability to claim them do not arise naturally, and instead, they are supported through contractual agreements (Rousseau, 47). Although every man can work on the land and receive crops, they cannot claim these crops as their own without having an agreement from others.
Considering the issue of necessity, rights to property arising as a part of the social contract between people. The basis of Rousseau’s argument in opposition to Locke’s is that people act in accordance with the social contract they agreed to, which justifies property ownership. According to Rousseau, “every man by nature has a right to everything he needs; however, the positive act whereby he becomes a proprietor of some goods excludes him from all the rest” (152). Hence, the basis of Rousseau’s opposition to Locke is that there is nothing natural in ownership. Since everything on Earth belongs to the people, only having an agreement within the society to abide by property rights can allow one to claim something as theirs.
Locke’s Response and Evaluation
Locke’s potential response to Rousseau’s criticism would consist of an exploration of the ownership of one’s body and the labor that one puts into achieving things. In The Second Treatise of Government, the author explains his philosophy of nature’s laws, according to which people appropriate and control things around them (Locke, 288). However, Locke’s natural law argument does acknowledge that all people were given an equal right to possess land or other things. The argument is based on one’s right to have ownership of one body. In Chapter 5, Locke writes that “every Man has a Property in his own Person,” which refers to the first ownership element people have since they are born (288). Although in modern society, this right is supported through legal treaties, the history of the civilization shows that ownership of the body has been accepted by people as a moral standard and practice. Due to the fact that this right rises naturally without a social contract that would forbid others from making decisions regarding other people’s bodies, the result of the body’s work results in ownership as well.
Locke believed that labor as a product of one’s body extends the person’s rights to ownership. The philosopher defines labor as “the Work of hands,” which allows claiming ownership of the final product (Locke, 288). With this argument, Locke acknowledges the universal ownership of things on Earth for all people but adds the element that allows making distinctions. For example, if a person used their body to mix the soil and look after plants, to grow groups, the combination of their natural right to their body and the work grants them the right to own the land. This is because the actions of a person allow them to change the state in which the objects were created naturally (Locke, 288). Hence, this combination of one’s labor with resources that belong to all grants property rights.
Unlike Rousseau, Locke believes that the work that comes into mixing nature’s common resources with something that inherently belongs to an individual does not require consent from others. According to Locke, “assignation or consent of anybody” is not necessary when completing actions such as mixing the soli (288). With this approach, Rousseau would argue that actions described by Locke are only valid if other members of society agree that they provide the ownership to the final product. The factor is the ultimate distinction between the views of the two philosophers,
Locke’s argument implies that ownership of property is based solely on the inclination of one person to use their body, an object that belongs only to that person without a predefined social agreement to change nature’s products. Locke’s response is adequate since although Rousseau contradicts Locke’s approach to property ownership. The main issue between these two philosophers is that they build their arguments using different perspectives—social contact ad natural rights. Hence, when examining the theories of one another, they see inconsistencies that are derived from using different perspectives. Regardless, Locke’s approach is grounded in people’s natural rights, such as their right to control their bodies, which does not originate from a social or legal agreement but exists naturally.
Conclusion
In summary, Rousseau and Locke had different perceptions of property ownership origins. Locke believed that the first person, who claimed a piece of land to their name, established the modern civilization with its policies regarding ownership. Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that human achievements arise naturally from the pursuit of people’s interests and needs. He contradicted Locke’s approach by arguing that a mere verbal claim of ownership can be easily counteracted by anyone. The arguments and approaches of the two philosophers differ as one focuses on the civil contract between people and the other on natural rights.
Bibliography
John Locke, Political Writings (2nd. ed., 2003).
Jean-Jacques, Rousseau, Political Writings (2nd. ed., 2003).