Locke argues that natural law, whether it is the gathering of fruit or the appropriation of land, gives man a limit to the fact that these products of labour cannot be destroyed without use; if so, he violates the common law of nature and is punished; and that his excessive and potentially corrupt products of labour which he himself cannot consume no longer belong to him, but can be enjoyed by others.
If it is land, and when he occupies so much land that the fruit produced has not yet been collected and stored, his land that has been encircled should still be regarded as deserted and can be occupied by anyone else.
Locke's statement or regulation should be said to be justified. However, when the problem concerned money, his above assertion fell short and became meaningless.
Money is an enduring thing that people can preserve without being damaged, and people exchange it for the really useful but perishable necessities of life based on mutual agreement.
Locke was completely certain about the emergence of money. "Different degrees of industriousness give people different amounts of property, just as this invention of money gives them the opportunity to continue to accumulate and expand their property," he said. ([English] Locke. Theory of Government. Next. The Commercial Press, 1964. p.31;
Money, Locke argues, actually encourages enthusiasm for the appropriation and expansion of land and the multiplication of property: "As soon as a man finds among his neighbor something that can be used as money and has monetary value, you will see that the same man immediately begins to expand his estate." ”(p.32)
Locke said that whether a man's possession of property is justified "does not depend on how much he occupies, but on whether there is something in his hands that is uselessly destroyed." (p.31) With money, the phrase becomes: No matter how much property a man possesses, he is justified, because he can convert his property into money and store it, and money will not be corrupted with time. In fact, Locke thought so, saying that gold and silver "can be stored without harming anyone" and "will not be damaged or corrupted in the hands of the possessor". (p.32)
It is true that gold and silver will not be damaged or corrupted, but it is not necessary to say that it will not harm anyone. Locke said that gold and silver only play a role in the cellaring of property without destruction, in fact, gold and silver, money play a role not only in cellaring, it can also be taken out to increase property, such as usury in the financial field, such as hoarding in commercial operations, and so on.
In this process, the holder of gold and silver does not create new products through labor, but he acquires new property, and he takes possession of the labor of others, because he has gold and silver as capital, and others do not but need it.
Locke said: "The reason why people are able to go beyond the confines of society and not have to go through the social contract, and divide goods into unequal private property, is only because they give gold and silver a value and acquiesce in the use of money." (p.32) He went on to say that the Government provided for property rights by law and that the possession of land was determined by a written constitution.
In Locke's view, people form property rights, ownership, and invent the circulation of money to preserve and expand property, which are more basic facts than civil society, and the establishment of civil society is only to confirm the facts that have been formed.
Because of the use of money, people must be unequal in their possession of property, and Locke affirmed this fact, and believed that the situation should be protected by law. Does this contradict his emphasis on the idea that all men are equal in nature?
In Locke's view, there is no contradiction. Equality for all in the state of nature means the equal right of every human being to his or her natural freedoms, not subject to the will or authority of anyone else. This does not exclude inequality in the capacity to work between people and the resulting differences in property. This inequality of property can only be attributed to differences in human capacity and the labour paid, and it does not infringe upon the freedoms and natural rights of others.
In fact, are the different possessions of property caused by labor? In the state of nature, can those who obey natural law always win and those who break natural law and infringe on others always lose? Not necessarily. The property that people possess is both accumulated through their own labor and acquired through cunning and robbery. Locke acknowledges only one situation and denies or ignores another.
On the question of money and private property, Locke and his predecessors, More, have two diametrically opposed attitudes. More believed that private property was the source of all evil, and that all social evils were derived from it; Locke believed that the establishment of private property made people truly have their own rights, which was the driving force of social development.
More proposed the abolition of money, the abolition of the monetary function of gold and silver, money is the root cause of poverty; Locke pointed out that the emergence of money has made people industrious and promising, and social wealth continues to grow, which is the source of wealth.
Who is right and who is wrong, right or wrong? It should be said that their views all have a certain degree of truth, and they also have their own biases. The establishment of personal property, money, and money is a double-edged sword, which can serve human beings and benefit society, and may also make people slaves and endanger human society. The key is how we treat it.
[This article is excerpted from the book "History of Western Social Thought" (Huang Zhongjing et al., Mass Publishing House, 2004 edition)]
How does Locke view property issues? What are the main flaws in his claims?