Locke and Nozick's political philosophy

Locke and Nozick

Conceptions of Property and Labor: Lock and Nozick

The concept of property and what defines it has always presented controversy within the fields of both economics and philosophy. Developing notions of property have also put strains on how we traditionally understand it. Traditional theories, posited by philosophers such as John Locke, state that property is determined by who labored to create or work the object. In his thought, Locke presented the idea that labor is the main force in determining property. However, modern thought within the context of free market capitalism has some adjustments on this traditional viewpoint. Robert Nozick presents an idea that distribution can exist beyond the limitations of Locke's labor theory, as long as the distribution is agreed upon by all consenting parties.

John Locke's theory regarding the link between labor and property revolutionized economic and philosophical thinking during an era of changing market practices. The main question Lock was looking to conquer with his theories was defining the nature of property and how property, including land, should be divided up. Locke posited the idea that people own their own labor, for it stems from their individual selves. Therefore, what a person labors for is in many aspects their property. Thus, "since persons own their own labor, when they mix their labor with that which is un-owned becomes their property," (Tuckness 1). Property is one of the fruits of labor. Therefore, when one puts labor into something that was un-owned and unaltered before, it becomes him. Locke gives the example of the farmer and his land. Before cultivation, land is common because it was created by nature and unaltered by man. However, when the farmer plows his fields, he is placing labor in the land and altering it, making it his; "Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property," (Locke 20). This assumption relies on basic background assumptions; labor adds something extra that was not included by nature -- thus natural things are common and property is part of labor, "That labour put a distinction between them and the common. That added something to them more than Nature, the common mother of all, had done, so they became a private right," (Locke 20). However, there are some restrictions in terms of how property is acquired even in the context of labor as the main source. The first restriction is the idea that individuals cannot take for themselves what will spoil, "one may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils," (Tuckness 1). The sufficiency restriction is the second and states that we must own only as much as one needs and leaves some for the good of others. Finally, property comes only through one's own labor. Therefore, money then becomes a conduit to translate labor into property in the modern sense.

Robert Nozick offers several modern praises and critiques of Locke's ancient concepts. Nozick critiques Locke's assumption of natural law based on the limited context of his era. England claimed to have a divine right to acquire property, yet in a free market economy this does not so applicably apply, "Lock believed that makers have property rights with respect to what they make just as God has property rights with respect to human beings because he is their maker," (Tuckness 1). In today's market, there is less faith in the concept of divine law, but rather a system built for functioning for the people. According to Nozick, Lockean property rights "constrain the extent to which we are entitled to act on our intuitions and theories about distributive justice," (Waldron 1). Therefore, distribution of property can exist in the modern world; however, property is not to be redistributed unless done so in a free exchange between two responsible and consenting individuals. If not done this way, "property rights in a market economy ought to be treated as resistant to redistribution and perhaps as insensitive to distributive justice generally except possibly at the moment of their initial allocation," (Waldron 1). It is within this concept that Nozick shows his criticism against reparations which would take tax payer's money ad distribute it to others without the full consent of the people who labored for that money. Nozick believed that "taxation on earnings is a form of coerced labor," (Waldron 1). According to his theory, to fully determine property, we must first figure out what we ourselves own, then we can see what we owe to others. He also presents the theory of historic entitlement, which states that "Whose use of a given resource came first is crucial, and the order in which goods were subsequently transferred from hand to hand is indispensable for understanding the legitimacy of current entitlements," (Waldron 1). Thus, the Lockean thinking of the past must be altered in order to fit the modern needs of the free market with its emphasis on distribution.