SMU Classification: Restricted

I. Introduction

Political theory, at least for the purpose of this paper, is defined as rivalling visions of the
good society. These accounts invoke the language of values– which as an important element
of shared identifies identities and ideologies– undergird political actions in a given society.

On the advocation of private property, two values, though not entirely mutually exclusive, are
unsurprisingly contested: liberty and equality. Concomitantly, it is pivotal to illuminate the
justifications put forth in favor of the former. This paper therefore seeks to explore the
arguments posited by John Locke, and evaluate its applicability to contemporary politics.

II. Discontent between liberty and equality

First, this section aims to elucidate how two political values– liberty and equality– stand in
opposition when concerned with the advocation of private property.

For the purpose of this paper, liberty shall be defined as negative liberty, which involves the
absence of constraints; and equality, shall be defined as the equality of outcome.

Liberty and property are inextricably linked: when an individual possesses the exclusive right
over a particular property, he can utilise it to generate capital, as long as it does not
contravene any law(s). However, a system of private property also serves as a basis for
exacerbating inequality, more specifically, income inequality. Those who lack the means to
acquire any property will obviously earn less than those who do, ceteris paribus.

Therefore, it would be wise to explore the justifications proposed in favour of private

property, notwithstanding its implications on equality.

III. On Property

Second, Locke’s theory of property will be explored in this section.

A. Justification of Private Property

1
 SMU Classification: Restricted

Locke presupposes that the right to private property is predicated on religious grounds– that
God has given the earth for man to enjoy (Early Modern Texts, 2008, p.12).

We begin with man in a state of nature where no one man is born with dominion over another
(Early Modern Texts, 2008, p.3). It then follows from our natural equality, that the fruits of
the Earth, which includes its land, vegetations and animals are to be enjoyed by all.

On the rightful possession of a property, Locke addresses labour as that of man’s own
person. His labour belongs exclusively to him, and him alone. Once he has sought to create
something through his labour from the pool of resources nature has to offer, it ceases to
belong to mankind as a whole; instead, he becomes the exclusive owner of the possession that
has been mixed with his own labour. To that end, it is labour, as Locke argues, that
legitimizes an individual’s possession, and therefore, his right to own the property (Early
Modern Texts, 2008, p.11).

As an extension of the preceding point, Locke also sought to address the resistance that
followed; that if the Earth belongs to mankind collectively, how can any one person lay claim
to a particular possession? Locke argued that it would be both absurd and unrealistic if the
rightful possession of a property was dependant on the permission of the collective. In his
words, ‘men would starve trying to make sure that every man approved of his actions (Early
Modern Texts, 2008, p.12).’

B. Merits of Private Property

Private property, as legitimised by man’s labour creates value.

Locke goes on to defend this proposition by drawing an distinction between valuable and less
valuable goods. ‘Bread, wine and cloth are things we use daily, but if it weren’t for the labour
that is put into these more useful commodities, we would have to settle for acorns, water and
leaves as our food, drink and clothing (Early Modern Texts, 2008, p.16).’ Each of the goods
mentioned serve similar purposes, yet what fundamentally differentiates the value of one
good from another is wholly dependent on the labour that has been mixed with the resources
provided by nature.

2
 SMU Classification: Restricted

C. Restriction on Ownership

The possession of property, however, is subjected to the spoilage proviso.

In other words, there are natural limits to ownership– one cannot claim more that than he
needs such that the goods be destroyed or spoilt (Early Modern Texts, 2008, p.15). More
importantly, this proviso is substantiated with the laws of nature, which Locke argued, was
not to harm each other in ‘life, health, liberty, or possessions’ (Locke, 2003, p. 102). By
claiming more than he needs, one may deny access to others, particularly when the good
taken is scarce, thereby harming another man’s need to preserve himself. To that end,
claiming more than necessary is wasteful and against the law of nature.

D. The inequality that arises

However, moderate consumption is impossible with the introduction of money.

To elucidate this point, Locke drew a distinction of society before and after the introduction
of money.

In the state of nature, Locke argued that men did not fall prey to excess because an excess of
goods would ultimately spoil, and fail to provide sustenance to anyone. The introduction of
money, however, meant that it was possible to hoard money because it would not spoil, and
larger possessions became de rigueur (Early Modern Texts, 2008, p.14). It follows that excess
consumption leads to a decrease in available resources, and ultimately, to an inequality of
possessions owned by individuals. Therefore, the conflict over such resources requires the
creation of a civil government, and ‘laws to regulate the right of property (Early Modern
Texts, 2008, p.18).’

IV. On Contemporary Politics

Lastly, this sections aims to analyse the sufficiency of the aforementioned arguments in
today’s context.

A. Justifying Property Rights

3
 SMU Classification: Restricted

Locke’s legitimization of possession through labour carries little merit; instead, his
proposition of value generated through labour seems to be a stronger impetus for private
property rights in contemporary politics.

The former can is substantiated by Nozick’s example of mixing tomato juice that one
rightfully owns with the sea. Herein lies a dilemma: following Locke’s argument, it would
seem that the individual now owns the sea; yet, it is also more likely that he has lost his
tomato juice instead (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2018). Therefore, the
legitimization of possession through a mixture of what one owns is not without challenge, let
alone, applicable to contemporary politics.

What is more relevant, however, is the justification of property rights through the merits
which it brings. There is a wealth of economic literature, more specifically on institutional
economics, that argues that property rights and economic performance(s) are inextricably
linked. As with Locke’s value- creating powers of labour, institutionalists stress the
importance of fostering robust institutions that protect property rights, thereby incentivising
the individual to maximise its value through his own labour, attaining allocative efficiency
(Prasad, 2003).

For example, notwithstanding the similar level of resources, culture or climate that the two
Koreas have, Wolf in Rethinking Economics argued that the stark differences in economic
growth can be attributed to the robustness of each country’s institutions, in particular, its
emphasis on private property rights.

In the similar vein, it would be appropriate to argue that the generation of value through
labour, at least through Locke’s lens, serve as a basis for the advancement of private property
rights in contemporary politics.

E. On Inequality

A system of private property, exacerbates inequality, more specifically, income inequality.

4
 SMU Classification: Restricted

It is futile, for obvious reasons, to ask if Locke’s argument– that men consume in
moderation– holds true in the state of nature. Neither is it useful to ask if men, as implied by
Locke, are necessarily greedy, and therefore prone to consume excessively upon the
introduction of money.

Instead, I opine that it would be more meaningful to ask if a system of private

property– which extends to the protection of intellectual property in today’s context– has in
fact exacerbated (income) inequality. On the facts, the differences in the possession of
property among individual(s)/ individual household(s), as with the subsequent accumulation
of it, concomitantly lead to variations in incomes earned from those with, and without such
possessions, thereby exacerbating income inequality (Hodgson, 2016).

F. On the role of Government(s)

As with Locke, the many functions of a government, at least in democracies, include the
regulation of private property rights.

For the purpose of this paper, I shall restrict the scope of my argument to the context of
Singapore, which as with most governments, aims to seek an optimal balance between liberty
(thereby protecting property rights) and equality. For example, an individual must comply
with a Minimum Occupancy Period (MOP) when he purchases a build-to-order (BTO) unit
from the Housing and Development Board (Housing & Development Board, 2019). Within
this period, he is not permitted to acquire other private property, either in Singapore or
abroad, thereby limiting the accumulation of wealth. Though narrow in its focus, this
example serves as a microcosm of the governments’ role in the regulation of private property,
with an ideal objective of preserving both liberty and equality.

V. Conclusion

To conclude, this paper sought to explore the importance of justifying a political action (the
advocation of private property) through the lens of John Locke; and its applicability to
contemporary politics.

5
 SMU Classification: Restricted

References:

Biman, C.P. (2003). Institutional economics and economic development: The theory of
property rights, economic development, good governance and the environment, pp. 747.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235313244_Institutional_economics_and_economi
c_development_The_theory_of_property_rights_economic_development_good_governance_
and_the_environment

Early Modern Texts. (2008). John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, pp. 30-46. Retrieved
from https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf

Geoffrey, M. H. (2016). How Capitalism Actually Generates More Inequality. Retrieved

from https://evonomics.com/how-capitalism-actually-generates-more-inequality/

Housing & Development Board. (2019). HDB Flat. Retrieved from

https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1383797553343&pagename=InfoWEB
%2FPage%2FArticleDetailPage&rendermode=preview

Locke, J. (2003). Two Treatises of government and A letter concerning toleration. Yale
University Press.

Sandford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (2018). Robert Nozick’s Political Philosophy.

Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/

Comments:
You have done some good research and shows an excellent grasp of the relevant parts of
Locke’s theory.

Grade: A-

Relevance of material Excellent

Understanding of material Excellent
Use of material to make own point/argument Very good
Structuring Very good

6
 SMU Classification: Restricted

Soundness & cogency of arguments Very good

Clarity of expression Excellent
Overall quality of essay Very good