John Locke's Seconde Treatise of Government

Résumé du document

This extract from John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, exposes the basis of his theory of property which is aimed at refuting Filmer's justification of absolute monarchy. Starting from the same basis as contemporary authors, he soon dissents from them. Finally it plays a major role in his global thought and has later been interpreted in many ways, from pure liberalism to collectivism. According to Edward J. Harpham, Locke wanted to provide a rational alternative to Filmer's theory of property and to destroy his justification of absolute arbitrary political power. To strengthen his demonstration he starts from the same source: the Bible. Filmer had argued that God gave the world to Adam as private property or to mankind as a communal grant, concluding that there were only two options: royal proprietorship (by individual inheritance from Adam to kings) or communism. It seriously challenged contractualism by asking how this communal grant could end in private property without a general consent of all men, which appeared technically impossible. Locke disagrees and demonstrates that private property is possible, even if we start from the assertion according to which God gave the world to mankind in common.

Extraits

[...] Winfrey highlights the fact that Locke's argument is directed against the divine right claim of the Stuart kings and the rights and privileges claimed by aristocracy. By doing so, Locke blosters the case of Whigs and try to justify the Glorious revolution. His theory makes property a natural right established prior to the consent which legitimated government, a central issue explaining the existence of government and allowing its evaluation. The unequality resulting in the enlargement of appropriation after the introduction of money is fair since it has been consented and that it makes everybody better off[7]. [...]

[...] Even if it lets some people without any land, they can be employed for cultivation. Indeed, since one's work is his, people can decide to sell their labour on the ground of individual agreements. This permits the accumulation of a greater amount of wealth, which progressively produces a need for a non-perishable exchange value. That is how men finally agree to create money. It enables to surpass the previous limitations of non- spoilage and sharing by permiting the circulation of goods. [...]

[...] Karl Olivecrona analyses Locke's theory as contrary to his contemporary background formed by Grotius and Pufendorf. According to them, God gave Earth to mankind in common, creating a state of communism until people agreed to some divisions, a private right to property (dominium). Pufendorf stresses on the necessity of consent from the rest of mankind for people to take what they need to survive in the state of nature. If Locke starts with the same proposition, he tries to find another way to get out of original communism because he thinks that it is impossible to reach such an agreement. [...]

[...] By extension, products of nature become our when we mix our labour with them. Locke considers as a good sense fact that there is no need of general agreement for this kind of appropriation because men would have starved if they had had to wait for it. However, this appropriation has two limits: men have to take what they need and let a sufficient amount to the others and they must not spoil God's creations (i.e. not taking more than they can use). [...]

[...] Finally, Karen Vaughn underlines how far interpretations went and asks to what degree we can pretend to interpret thinkers' words. Furthermore, it can seem anachronistic to label Locke as a liberal thinker. Bibliography John Locke, Two treatises of government Hampsher-Monk Iain, A history of modern political thought, Blackwell edition Chapter II Secondary readings : C. B. Macpherson, The political theory of possessive individualism, Oxford paperbacks John C. Winfrey, Charity versus justice in Locke's theory of property Journal of the History of ideas, Vol No Juil-Sept 1981, pp. [...]