ISSN: 2241-4665
13 Ιανουαρίου
2021
“Defining the right to property in
the context of liberalism: Locke’s and Nozick’s views”
Toutoudaki Marina
« Ορίζοντας το δικαίωμα
της ιδιοκτησίας στο πλαίσιο του φιλελευθερισμού: οι απόψεις του Λοκ και του
Νόζικ»
Τουτουδάκη Μαρίνα
Abstract
In the 19th
century, as a result of the Enlightenment and the great revolutions of the
previous two centuries, a new political ideology is formed, liberalism. One of
the central themes of the new ideology is private property. This is the subject
of the present study, which focuses on the views of two important liberal
thinkers. John Locke, a leading figure of the 17th century, representative of
the Enlightenment and exponent of the ideas of classical liberalism, considers
private property a natural right. He associates it with Reason and with the
right to freedom and argues that it arises as a result of personal work. He
also recognizes its protection as an obligation of the state, since the creation
of rules is required in order to ensure social consensus on the issue of the
acquisition and management of citizens' personal property.
Robert Nozick, a
representative of libertarianism, a form of liberalism of the 20th century,
is also particularly concerned with the issue of private property. The
convergence of the views of the two philosophers is obvious, as Nozick, like
Locke, considers private property a natural right, which arises from personal
work and must be protected by the state. Beyond the similarities, however, the
time distance and the different social, economic and political context, in
which the views of the latter are formed, are the elements that explain the
differences which are also observed. Thus, going one step further, Nozick
refers denies any state intervention aiming at mitigating property differences
between citizens, treating such actions as a violation of human rights.
Περίληψη
Το 19ο
αιώνα, ως απότοκο του Διαφωτισμού και των μεγάλων επαναστάσεων των δύο προηγούμενων
αιώνων, διαμορφώνεται μια νέα πολιτική ιδεολογία, ο φιλελευθερισμός. Ένα από τα
κεντρικά θέματα της νέας ιδεολογίας είναι εκείνο της ατομικής ιδιοκτησίας, το
οποίο πραγματεύεται η παρούσα μελέτη, εστιάζοντας στις απόψεις δύο σημαντικών
φιλελεύθερων στοχαστών. Ο Τζον Λοκ, κορυφαία προσωπικότητα του 17ου αιώνα,
Διαφωτιστής και σημαντικός εκφραστής των ιδεών του κλασικού φιλελευθερισμού,
συγκαταλέγει την ατομική ιδιοκτησία στα φυσικά δικαιώματα. Τη συναρτά με τον
ορθό λόγο και το δικαίωμα της ελευθερίας και θεωρεί ότι προκύπτει ως αποτέλεσμα
της προσωπικής εργασίας. Αναγνωρίζει, επίσης, ως υποχρέωση του κράτους την
προστασία της, καθώς απαιτείται η δημιουργία κανόνων, ώστε να εξασφαλίζεται
κοινωνική συναίνεση στο θέμα της απόκτησης και διαχείρισης της ατομικής
περιουσίας των πολιτών.
Με το
θέμα της ατομικής ιδιοκτησίας ασχολείται ιδιαίτερα και ο Ρόμπερτ Νόζικ,
εκπρόσωπος του λιμπερταριανισμού, μορφής του φιλελευθερισμού του 20ου αιώνα.
Είναι εμφανής η σύγκλιση των απόψεων των δύο φιλοσόφων, καθώς ο Νόζικ, όπως και
ο Λοκ, θεωρεί την ατομική ιδιοκτησία φυσικό δικαίωμα, το οποίο προκύπτει από
την προσωπική εργασία και πρέπει να προστατεύεται από το κράτος. Η χρονική
απόσταση και το διαφορετικό κοινωνικό, οικονομικό και πολιτικό πλαίσιο, μέσα
στο οποίο διαμορφώνονται οι απόψεις του, τον κάνουν να προχωρά ένα βήμα
παραπέρα από τον Λοκ. Έτσι ο Νόζικ αρνείται κάθε κρατική παρέμβαση που
αποσκοπεί στην άμβλυνση των ιδιοκτησιακών διαφορών μεταξύ των πολιτών,
αντιμετωπίζοντας ενέργειες αυτού του είδους ως παραβίαση των ανθρωπίνων
δικαιωμάτων.
Table of Contents
The Age of
Enlightenment and the great revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries
contributed decisively to the change of political ideology in Europe and in the
U.S.A. Thus in the 19th century a new political theory, liberalism, appears.
Rooted in previous revolutionary movements, it shakes the foundations of
feudalism by bringing to the fore the radical demands of the rising bourgeoisie.
The new theory evolves over time, moving from classical liberalism to more
modern forms, such as social liberalism and neoliberalism. Liberal ideology is
based on a set of beliefs and values related to the concepts of individual, reason, justice and freedom. In this context the promotion
of the right to private property becomes really important. It is seen as a way
to free oneself from the shackles of feudal slavery and as a means of
highlighting the autonomy of citizens, who have charisma, autonomous value and
critical attitude towards the world [1].
This paper
examines views about private property, as expressed in the context of
liberalism, focusing on the ideas of the two most important representatives of
liberal ideology, John Locke and Robert Nozick. The aim is to demonstrate how,
despite the three centuries that separate them, Nozick's theories are
essentially a continuation of Locke's, as they have much in common with the
principles of classical liberalism, which Locke represents. On the other hand,
Nozick’s different political, social and economic environment explains any
differences.
Private property
John Locke
(1632-1704), a leading proponent of the theory of
"natural rights”, which are believed to have been given to man by
God himself (life, liberty, property), is a leading figure of the Enlightenment
and one of the first exponents of the earliest liberal theory, classical
liberalism [2]. His theory of property is based on two elements, God and Reason.
Regarding God, Locke believes that He gave the world to people in order to
survive and to ensure the necessary comfort in their lives [3].
Locke also believes
that before the establishment of organized societies, people lived in a "natural state”. According to his point of
view, this is the state in which each person acts and
disposes his possessions and himself the way he considers right. In the natural
state everyone is equal, with only God being superior. Freedom has limits and the
natural law prevails. Man, as a rational being, can understand this law and, as a consequence,
organises his life accordingly to it [4]. Ownership is communal, so all the members of the “natural society” have the
same rights in whatever nature offers them and even without the need for
explicit contracts between them [5].
Nevertheless
Locke takes it for granted that natural state could not continue indefinitely, as
the individual differences and personal aspirations create
inequalities, which consequently lead to conflicts, just as in the early
English capitalism that Locke experienced. He argues that a social contract is
needed, in order to maintain the necessary for any society peace and social
order. As a result, the transition from the natural state to the political
society is performed [6].
In
the same way, natural communal ownership also could not continue indefinitely. Thus he accepts the need to
define a criterion that will designate the transition from common ownership to another
form of property, the private one [7], the protection of which is the main aim of the political
society [8]. In this new type of
society, private property is a prerequisite for participation in political
processes, as in many cases only the property owners, who paid taxes, had
political rights [9].
It is at this
point that the liberal belief in the primacy of the individual and the importance of his natural rights becomes
apparent. This view arises as a result of the collapse of feudalism, in which
the concept of the individual exists only as a member of a group. It is, also,
reinforced by the rationalism of the Enlightenment, and takes in the context of
liberalism the form of an individualism, which insists on the issue of
individual autonomy [10].
Locke considers
personal work to be a decisive condition for the transition from common
ownership to the private one [11]. It is his belief that God gave the world to all people. All
of them are entitled to life, goods and pleasure, under the condition that they
work in order to obtain the necessary livelihood. Work is the one and only
means for any acquisition and, as a consequence, the necessary precondition for
private property [12] [13]. This principle refers to property in land, in
oneself and in artifacts as well [14].
God and Reason
oblige man to work to "subjugate the earth" [15]. On the basis of Reason,
since every person is considered the undisputed owner of himself, it is
undoubtedly concluded that the product of his personal work is also his
property [16]. Human toil is considered to detach
the product of labor from the common divine inheritance, remove it from the “natural
state” and lead to its appropriation, attaching it to the worker [17]. This, of
course, presupposes that the individual is free to choose the way of disposing
of himself and his toil. The concept of freedom is, after all, the supreme
value of liberalism. It is divided into negative,
if it is related -as in the case of Locke- to the right of acting "at
will", independently of external interventions, and to positive, if it refers to the ability of
the individual to form self sovereignty [18].
At the same
time, work is the criterion according to which the value of things -for example
of cultivated land- is determined and differentiated, while the differentiation
of people's hard work justifiably leads to a change in the size of the acquired
property [19]. Differences in people's
industriousness also justify differences in their own property [20] [21]. This
recognition consorts with the acceptance of diversity -and consequently of the tolerance
of diversity- which is a key feature of liberalism [22].
Nonetheless
there is always a basic parameter, which no one can ignore: personal effort can
lead to the acquisition of individual assets only on the condition that there
remain common goods of sufficient quantity and satisfactory quality for all
people. In this case, “sufficient quantity” and “satisfactory quality” are
defined by the amount of goods that a person can consume before they are worn
out, in order to ensure survival and comfort. Therefore natural -in other words
“moral”- law sets the limit to private property by creating moral constraints, as
the survival and improvement of the lives of others are taken into account [23].
Exceeding this measure is an offense, because it is tantamount to claiming
property disproportionate to an individual's needs. In the matter of acquiring
property, therefore, justice does not depend on the size of the property but on
whether part of it is destroyed due to uselessness [24].
As a consequence,
individual property is treated as the outcome of human Reason and as a primary
element of Freedom, since it is a free activity of self-ownership. It arises
from the need for self-preservation, which is based on natural law, and the
meaning of man as a "person" takes place only through its acquisition
[25]. In addition, it is based on work, which is considered to increase the
common property, since it offers greater income to humanity, improving the lives
of all [26]. This "Protestant" idealization of work is considered the
basic originality of Locke’s theory. Its utilitarian view, however, raises
questions about the relationship with natural law, on which the philosopher
bases it [27].
Nevertheless it
becomes obvious that, concerning private property, the consent of the other
members of the community is necessary in order to ensure a calm social life [28]. A typical example is the
appropriation of common lands in England at the time when Locke formulated his
theory: the land
which the cultivators could use for grazing their sheep and for timber was
privatized by feudal lords. By the "enclosure of common
lands" they aimed at using them as pastures, in order to merchandise wool.
In this way a large mass of proletarian peasants was created, who were often
forced to abandon their villages and migrate to the cities. Their miserable
living conditions often became the cause of strong social tensions and
conflicts [29,
30, 31]. To
control them the British government was eventually forced to pass laws on land
grabbing and property acquisition. Thus, property becomes the cause of the creation of laws and of state
institutions, through which the consequent peace and the improvement of the
living conditions of all are ensured [32].
From the same
data emerges the necessity of the use of money, which facilitates the exchange
of perishable but necessary goods, in order to avoid their wretchedness [33]. With the use of money, therefore, the pre-political society
restrictions of “sufficient quantity” and “satisfactory quality” are removed. As
a result, money ensures the possibility of increasing wealth, as every person
has the opportunity to exchange not only the goods that are in danger of being
destroyed but also his own work with money, which is indestructible [34].
This way the transition to a new world order is
achieved, where the recognition of the right to property does not stem from
natural law but from the pursuit of benefit, while at the same time consensus
and common definition of rules for the maintenance of social order are
required. This makes the role of the state important for property protection. Of
course, this recognition does not legitimize state interventions that go
against to natural rights, interfering with citizens' property. According to
Locke, such interventions are acceptable only with the consent of the majority.
This view highlights the liberal belief in the need for the existence of the state,
in order to ensure peaceful cohabitation and social stability. Nonetheless at
the same time state’s detrimental effect on the issue of individual freedom is
also recognized [35].
During
the 19th century the development of urban society becomes the starting point of
an attempt of redefinition of civil rights, so that the new vision keeps pace
with the developments of the time. Industrialization as well as the formation
of the working class and the demand for workers' participation in politics lead
therefore to a new approach to the issue of private property, which is no
longer considered a prerequisite for the acquisition of civil rights. At the
same time, a new policy for the formation of a welfare state is gradually being
carried out, creating a great debate on taxation issues. This inevitably leads
to a redefinition of basic elements of classical liberal theory, as income
redistribution systems lead to a renegotiation of the concept of private
property [36].
Within this
framework Robert Nozick (1938-2002), the leading representative of Libertarianism,
a neoliberal theory of the 20th century, returns to the issue of property.
In his time, the theocratic mentality of previous centuries has receded, while the issue of equality of citizens in
all areas is strongly highlighted, as a consequence of the important political
and military events of the 20th century. At the same time, the
pursuit of the free market and the crisis of the welfare state turn philosophers
into views, which consider man as a unit that seeks prosperity based on
personal abilities, without adhering to the collective values of
earlier times [37].
At the heart of
Nozick's theory of private property lies Locke's view of the existence and
significance of inalienable natural rights. According, however, to Nozick’s
point of view, based on the principles of natural justice, the most important
of these rights is property. This right refers to the acquisition of goods and
natural resources, but mainly to the ownership of oneself. The convergence with
the negative view of freedom, as it is defined by Locke, is evident, in
contrast to the approach of the concept observed in modern liberalism, since he
argues that the consequence of self-ownership is the potentiality of the individual
to act freely from external coercions and to dispose of himself and his property
at will [38].
Nozick considers
-as Locke also did- that whatever natural gifts the individual possesses are
his undisputed property and ensure his exclusive ownership of every benefit
that results from them. This emphasis on self-ownership leads him in the same
way to the correlation with the right of private property: given the difference
in physical gifts, the acquisition of assets of different value is expected and
acceptable [39]. This acquisition, as Locke also argues, is legitimate, if it originates
from personal work, which according to Nozick has been the way of acquiring
property during all eras. In the theory of Nozick, after all, Locke’s distinction
between “natural state” and organized society does not exist. In addition, Locke
considers personal effort to be sufficient for the appropriation of things and
land. On the contrary, Nozick, without including -as Locke did- God in his
arguments, considers that personal labor establishes property rights over goods
by increasing their value, but accepts the appropriation that comes from labour,
only if it arises legally [40].
Nozick also recognises
as legitimate the acquisition of property by any means, as long as it is based
on legal certificates. According to the Nozick’s theory of ownership
certificates, in addition to the primary acquisition through appropriation, the
transfer is also a legal way, while at the same time the redress of any unjust
and illegal acquisition is required [41]. According
to Nozick, the property rights are absolute and co-possible [42]. They can be
used only under the condition that they do not cause harm to others, so it
is also imperative that any acquisition does not result in the deterioration of
the lives of other members of society [43]. It is obvious, of course, that the
negative term "deterioration" is not the same as the positive term
"improvement" used by Locke, as "non-deterioration" is not
always synonymous with improvement. On this basis, the possession of unique
resources by a person is rejected, given the undeniable deterioration that will
be caused in the lives of others [44].
From the above
views the conclusion is drawn that Nozick sees man as aim and not as a means,
so he considers that he can dispose of his property -even that of his own self-
as he wishes, free from any external
coercion, thus exalting the property to the highest individual value. Although
he is not interested -unlike Locke- in the usefulness of his property in
increasing the common capital, he accepts that it also benefits society, as it supports innovative ideas,
strengthens the most capable of its members and facilitates collective planning
[45].
For the above
reasons, Nozick believes -as Locke also did- that the state must intervene as
little as possible in matters of property ("minimal state"). He,
however, denies any connection of the minimal state’s intervention with natural
law or with the satisfaction of the public interest, limiting the state duty to
the protection of citizen property rights from violence and injustice. In this
sense, social benefits or taxation for the redistribution of wealth and for the
alleviation of the disadvantaged are unjust to those who have legally succeeded
in acquiring property due to the superiority of their natural gifts, since it
treats them as a means of dealing with collective problems [46]. Consequently, compulsory redistributive taxation is unacceptable, since
it restricts the right of private property, notwithstanding that helps the
needy survive. Such actions can only be done with the explicit consent
of property owners, for example in the form of charity. Otherwise, state
intervention constitutes a blatant violation of natural individual rights and
essentially devalues and enslaves people [47].
Chronologically Nozick
belongs to modern liberalism, as he formulates his theories from the middle of
the 20th century onwards, under conditions completely different from Locke, an
element that explains the differences between them. However, despite the different
socio-political context, the study of Nozick's view of private property
immediately reveals the points of convergence with Locke's classical
liberalism, as Nozick formulates points of view similar to the basic ideas of
classical liberal theory. His views are in fact a continuation of the Locke’s
theory, formed under the influence of a new social, political and economic
context, which treats differently the role of the individual in the social and
historical development.
[1] Heywood A: Political
Ideologies. Epicenter, Athens, 2005: 71-72, 75, 115-123.
[2] Heywood A: Political
Ideologies. Epicenter, Athens, 2005: 109.
[3]
Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law
and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39:
414-432.
[4] Aggelides M: The genesis of liberalism. Problems of the
composition of the politician in theories of social contract. Thomas Hobbes –
John Locke. Sakis Karagiorgas Fountation,
Athens, 1994: 136-141.
[5]
Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 111.
[6]
Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press,
Athens, 2009: 163.
[7]
Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law
and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39:
414-432.
[8]
Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press,
Athens, 2009: 164.
[9]
Aggelides M: The theory of rights in modern liberalism: issues of critical
reconstruction in the theories of R. Nozick, J. Rawls, R. Dworkin.
The Greek Review of Social Research 1988, 71: 3-17.
[10] Heywood A: Political
Ideologies. Epicenter, Athens, 2005: 77-79, 84, 107.
[11]
Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law
and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39:
414-432.
[12]
Aggelides M: The genesis of liberalism.
Problems of the composition of the politician in theories of social contract.
Thomas Hobbes – John Locke. Sakis Karagiorgas Fountation, Athens, 1994: 131.
[13]
Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press,
Athens, 2009: 175-176.
[14] Day JP: Locke on
property. The Philosophical Quarterly 1966, 16: 207 - 220.
[15] Locke
J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 116.
[16] Day JP: Locke on property.
The Philosophical Quarterly 1966, 16: 207 - 220.
[17]
Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 112-113.
[18]
Bandoros S: Introduction to Political Ideologies, Association of Greek Academic
Libraries, Athens, 2015: 32.
[19]
Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 122, 127.
[20]
Aggelides M: The genesis of liberalism.
Problems of the composition of the politician in theories of social contract.
Thomas Hobbes – John Locke. Sakis Karagiorgas Fountation, Athens, 1994: 130-131.
[21]
Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press,
Athens, 2009: 175-177.
[22]
Bandoros S: Introduction to Political Ideologies. Association of Greek Academic
Libraries, Athens, 2015: 33.
[23] Day JP: Locke on property.
The Philosophical Quarterly 1966, 16: 207-220.
[24]
Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 120, 126-7.
[25]
Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law
and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39:
414-432.
[26] Kymlicka W: Contemporary
political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 212-213.
[27]
Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law
and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39:
414-432.
[28]
Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 119.
[29]
Burns E: European History, v.1. Paratiritis, Thessaloniki, 1983: 184-186.
[30] Kymlicka W: Contemporary
political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 211-212.
[31]
Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press,
Athens, 2009: 168.
[32]
Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law
and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39:
414-432.
[33]
Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 125.
[34]
Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law
and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39:
414-432.
[35]
Bandoros S: Introduction to Political Ideologies. Association of Greek Academic
Libraries, Athens, 2015:107.
[36]
Aggelides M: The theory of rights in modern liberalism: issues of critical
reconstruction in the theories of R. Nozick, J. Rawls, R. Dworkin.
The Greek Review of Social Research 1988, 71: 3-17.
[37] Heywood A: Political
Ideologies. Epicenter, Athens, 2005: 119- 133.
[38] Kymlicka W: Contemporary
political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 205-207.
[39] Kymlicka W: Contemporary
political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 206-208.
[40]
Nozick R: Distributive Justice. In: Mela L (ed) Essays on Contemporary Political
Philosophy. Papazisis, Athens, 2018: 247-250.
[41]
Nozick R: Distributive Justice. In: Mela L (ed) Essays on Contemporary Political
Philosophy. Papazisis, Athens, 2018: 248-251, 262.
[42]
Fried B: Does Nozick have a theory of property
rights? In: Bader R, Meadowcroft J (Eds.) The
Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2011: 232-233.
[43]
Waldron J: Nozick and Locke: filling the space of rights. Social Philosophy and
Policy 2005, 22: 81-110.
[44]
Kymlicka W: Contemporary political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 205-207,
213-215.
[45]
Kymlicka W: Contemporary political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005:
207,215-220.
[46]
Waldron J: Nozick and Locke: filling the space of rights. Social Philosophy and
Policy 2005, 22: 81-110.
[47]
Fried B: Does Nozick have a theory of property
rights? In: Bader R, Meadowcroft J (Eds.) The
Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2011: 232-240.
Marina
Toutoudaki has studied Philology in the School of Philology of the Faculty of
Philosophy of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She also holds a degree
on Pedagogics and Teaching from the School of Pedagogical and Technological
Education (ASPETE) and has received her Master of Education (MEd) from Hellenic
Open University. For the past 3 years she has been studying towards a BSc in European
Civilization in Hellenic Open University. She has also attended an one year
course on teaching Greek as a foreign language (University of Patras) and has a
6-year experience on the subject, having taught several courses to foreign
students. She speaks fluently English and Spanish and has a teaching license in
Spanish.
From 1990 till
1998 she worked as a teacher in private schools, teaching Ancient and Modern
Greek and working at the same time on literary
editing. From 1998 until today she has been working as a teacher in
public secondary schools. At the same time she has coordinated a series of
innovative educational programs, such as Etwinning and Erasmus+ projects for
teachers and students. She is also a columnist for many scientific and literary
journals. Her interests lie in the areas of literature -mostly national and
European-, sociology, pedagogical science and school administration.
© Copyright-VIPAPHARM. All rights reserved
