Essay Example about Locke’s Theory of Original Appropriation

John Locke’s ideas from The Second Treatise of Government have formed the basis of a significant amount of western political philosophy, with specific regard to his claims surrounding private property. Locke considers property to be an unalienable right, and believes that a valid means of acquiring property is through original appropriation (Locke 370, 372). In this paper, I argue against John Locke’s theory of original appropriation on the basis that originally communal resources ought to remain communal, and that attempts to obtain these resources as private property are unjust. 

To begin, it is crucial to review the way that Locke defines property through original appropriation. Locke argues that property ownership comes about through the mixing of one’s labor with previously unclaimed resources, stating that “whatsoever he then removes out of the state that nature has provided… he has mixed his labor with… and thereby makes it his property” (Locke 371). This then grants that individual sole right to that resource and any fruits of that resource. However, in Locke’s view, the validity of labor added is dependent upon the identity of the laborer, and this has been used to justify the acquisition of previously owned property. For example, in Locke’s time, the labor of women and indigenous peoples was not recognized, and thus any resources they have labored upon are considered unclaimed and therefore acceptable to obtain (by a white man) under the idea of original appropriation. However, these resources were already owned, either privately or (as was the case for many indigenous societies) communally, and thus it is unjust to use Locke’s ideas to take ownership of these resources. Additionally, by not honoring the labor of certain individuals, it is clear that property ownership must come from some form of societal recognition of that ownership, not just labor added. Therefore, the principles expressed in Locke’s theory of original appropriation — that property is an inherent right that needs no external confirmation — are invalid. 

Furthermore, the idea of acquiring property through adding labor is dismissive and disrespectful of individuals without the capacity to perform these acts of labor. And when discussing originally communal resources, which are often resources necessary to survival, limiting access to these resources on the basis of labor input is a violation of the unalienable right to life. If certain individuals are able to put their labor into, for example, sections of arable land, and therefore exclusively claim it as theirs, this may leave no excess of this crucial resource to those that are unable to labor upon it. And even if there was land left over that had not been claimed — as Locke requires for just acquisition — because these individuals are unable to perform labor, they still may be left with no claim to any of this resource as property. It is crucial, therefore, that originally communal resources that are necessary for survival remain open for communal use and communal ownership, to ensure that individuals are able to fulfill their right to self-preservation, as the violation of this fundamental right is inherently unjust.

In a similar regard to the preceding argument, Locke’s theory reduces individuals (and their validity of owning property) down to their labor. By limiting the means of acquiring property down to labor, Locke reduces the resource value of individuals to the labor they are capable or willing to produce — essentially saying that the most valuable aspect of a person is their production capability. This is dismissive of the intrinsic value of human life and the concept that labor should not be required for survival. In the same vein, he limits the value of these communal resources to their production value, saying “it is labor that puts the difference of value on every thing” and thus ignoring any nonmaterial value they may have, such as historical, cultural, or religious significance (Locke 373). Claiming ownership to these resources as individual property may violate community ideas of cultural or religious liberties and is therefore unjust. 

Finally, the idea of exclusively claiming pieces of previously communal resources can be detrimental to others’ claims to utilizing said resources. According to Locke, once an individual has property claim to a resource, they have sole right to do with that resource as they please. However, not only does this potentially harm others by restricting their access to this resource, it may even cause harm to the excess resource that was left as communal property. For example, if an individual were to add some form of contaminant to the body of water that is part of their property, the contaminant may spread to the water outside of their property and harm the value of that resource for other individuals who need it. This then prevents these individuals from safely or effectively accessing these necessary resources, which once again can violate their right to life. The best preventative measure for this problem is to ensure that these communal resources remain communal, and that no individual is granted the right to do whatsoever they please with them. 

These critiques of Locke’s theory of original appropriation, however, are not a critique of property ownership as a whole. On the contrary, workers should own certain products of their labor. Locke argues off the premise that “the labour of his body and the work of his hands… are properly his,” which in theory is a just principle (Locke 371). Every individual, as Locke claims, has ownership over their own body, and therefore, by extension, must own anything that their body produces. However, this principle extends only to original products that have been created by the workers, and not resources that naturally exist and naturally are a communal good. If individuals were, for example, to cultivate the earth to produce grain, this grain may inherently be their property, but the land remains communal, and only the grain, not the land, has been produced. In the same way, any goods produced from communal resources may belong to the individual, but the resources themselves must remain unowned, as they were not products of labor. 

To conclude, while Locke’s overall views on the right to property are valid, his specific theory of original appropriation violates more central unalienable rights and infringes upon the liberties of others. Additionally, his presumption that only labor added allows for ownership is constrictive and inaccurate. Therefore, the principle of original appropriation is unjust and cannot be used to justify the ownership of collective resources.