Rousseau and Private Property

John Locke, in the Second Treatise of Government, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in On the Origin of Inequality, address the concept of human rights in relation to the establishment and acquisition of private property. Locke takes an almost idealist approach on the matter, arguing that human rights are bolstered by private property, and even goes as far as to name property as a human right in itself. Rousseau, however, takes a more realistic approach to private property, and recognizes the vast inequalities that it creates between human beings, arguing that the acquisition of private property undermines human rights. Rousseau crafts a much more persuasive argument due to his recognition of these inequalities, and the assertion that humans are willing to enslave themselves to them in order to protect their property.

Both Locke and Rousseau derive their views of human rights from the state of nature, where no human rights can be violated or impugned. Locke understands all humans to be free and equal in the state of nature, and thus entitled to life, liberty, and property. Rousseau differs only slightly in his conception of human rights, asserting that humans are free and equal so far as their understanding of one another goes. While not all are born in possession of the same talents, this does not become evident to humans until a society is created and competition is born. This becomes a divisive point in the ultimate conclusion of whether owning property bolsters or undermines human rights. As far as human rights are concerned, however, Locke and Rousseau’s views are similar enough in understanding that they may be considered the same for the purposes of analysis, being based on the freedom and equality of human beings existing in the state of nature and their entitlement to life and liberty.

The one right that Locke believes in and Rousseau does not is the right to property. Locke allowed for humans in the state of nature to have “a right of property, wherever any one was pleased to employ it upon what was common” (Locke, 27). Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that property could only properly be established after society, as law was necessary to establish and protect such an idea. This divergence in beliefs is what allows for the competing conclusions that each draws from the creation of private property.

In Locke’s conception of private property, he firmly states that is existent in the state of nature, and it is necessary to conceive of it in this way because nothing that is common to all men could be solely utilized by one man if he were not able to make it his own. To make it his own, “he removes (it) out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hat mixed his labor with (it), and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property” (Locke, 19). In this way, an individual can make their own anything that exists in nature, proved that “there is enough, and as good, left in common for others” (Locke, 19).

Due to this view that Locke holds, that there is enough of everything existent in nature for people to take what they are able to mix their labor with, providing nothing goes to waste, the concept of property thus bolsters his conception of human rights. A caveat to this view occurs after the establishment of society and the state. At this time, once people agree to give value to gold and silver, and from them all forms of currency, a system is established wherein an individual is able to amass great amounts of wealth without any of it going to waste.

Seemingly, this would disrupt and undermine the human right of equality. Locke argues, however, that even though an individual is able to amass wealth in unequal proportions, the benefits that this system allows to all participants apply to all equally. This is based on the principle that a rising tide lifts all boats, and Locke points out “a king of a large and fruitful territory in America feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day-laborer in England”. So while monetary inequality does exist, it does not affect human equality wherein the conditions for life and all aspects of it are elevated by the system that allows for the acquisition of wealth. In this way, human rights are bolstered because the equality that all humans share is elevated to a higher level of existence, freedoms are expanded by new opportunities, and the right to property is preserved.

Rousseau, on the other hand, has a highly contentious perception of property compared to Locke’s. Rousseau concurs with Locke in the way that property is acquired, as “it is impossible to conceive how property can come from anything but manual labor,” but does not share the same views about the effects of private property or the time in history that it originates (Rousseau, 94). In Rousseau’s theory, property can only be acknowledged once there is a state, with laws, to protect its establishment.
Because man was solitary in the state of nature, there was no need to claim anything as his own by mixing his labor with it, for there was nobody to contend with for the possession of an item or parcel of land. But once property was recognized, it “gave rise to the first rules of justice; for to secure each man his own, it had to be possible for each to have something” (Rousseau, 94). These rules allowed property to become privatized and protected as such, firmly establishing the idea of property. This differing conception of the establishment of property that Rousseau has from Locke lends itself to uncovering the reasoning behind the contrasting conclusions that each draw from its effects.
While Locke saw private property as bolstering human rights, Rousseau argues that it undermines them. After the establishment of private property, “there arose rivalry and competition together with a secret desire on both of profiting at the expense of others. All these evils were the first effects…of growing inequality” (Rousseau, 96). Rousseau sees property as a point of contention among people that not only eliminates the equality held while existing in the state of nature, but also increasingly creates greater and greater levels of inequality as time goes on.

Rousseau recognizes that “from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared” (Rousseau, 92). The reason that the human right of equality was undermined is because the talents of the individual were not equal, as “the strongest did the most work, (and) the one gained a great deal while the other could hardly support himself” (Rousseau, 94-5). Equality existed in the state of nature for Rousseau because individuals were not aware of their capacities in relation to one another, and thus were concerned only with their own abilities. Once a society was created, humans began to understand themselves in the context of others and became aware of their inequalities. For this reason, private property undermines human rights by creating inequality among individuals, and “all ran headlong into their chains, in hopes of securing their liberty,” effectually stripping individuals of their freedom as well (Rousseau).

The inconsistencies and overlooked realities in Locke’s views are what lead to the realization that Rousseau’s conception of property as undermining human rights is the more accurate portrayal. While Locke acknowledges the inequalities created by the acquisition of private property, he ignores the extreme hardships that many people face due to it. In his example of a King in America and a day laborer in England, he misses the fact that the subjects of the King in America remain clothed and fed relatively equally, whereas if a day laborer loses his job, his next meal can never be a certainty. In addition, while Locke assumes that all property is gained through the mixing of labor without infringement upon one’s neighbor, Rousseau is ready to admit the reality that much property is gained through plunder, confiscation, and taxation, because these are the attributes that are brought out by the establishment of private property. Ultimately, private property must be seen as undermining people’s right to equality and freedom because it is, “in itself the source of a thousand quarrels and conflicts” (Rousseau, 88).

Sources:

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Ed. C.B. Macpherson. Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Company, 1980.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract and Discourses. Ed. P.D. Jimack.
London: Orion Publishing Group, 1993.