Property Rights Theories of Natural

Property Rights

Theories of Natural Property Entitlement: A Comparison of John Locke and Robert Nozick

One of the longest-running and most pressing debates in the realm f political philosophy is that concerning an individual's right to property -- whether there is, in fact, a natural right to ownership, to what degree this rights extends if indeed it does exist, and how the practicalities of various theories concerning property rights are meant to play out in the real world. This has been a major question since the sixteenth century, with many widely varying conclusions having been drawn through the ages to justify various acts both of monarchies and other existing power structures, and of revolutions sought and carried out (at least supposedly) by the common man. It was towards the end of the seventeenth century that John Locke outlined his theory of property entitlement in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, and his theories have been hugely influential ever since.

Basically, Locke begins with the assertion that all of Earth was granted in common to mankind by God. He further asserts that every individual own his own body, and that no one else can rightfully claim control over an individual's body. As such, each individual also fully owns their own labor. If that labor is directed towards the collection or production of previously un-owned (or commonly owned) resources or property, these resources/properties become owned by dint of the labor put into them. A crux of Locke's argument that is especially important today is his belief that "The measure of property nature has well set by the extent of men's labour and the conveniencies of life: no man's labour could subdue, or appropriate all; nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part" (Locke, V. 36). Thus he believes that it is only through labor, and not through simply claiming, that property can become owned by an individual, and that therefore there should be plenty of property to go around. One might sell their property or hire others to work it, but this can only occur after initial ownership has been made through use.

This theory finds no small amount of agreement in the twentieth century Robert Nozick's assertion that any properly justly obtained can be justly redistributed along whatever lines the owner sees fit. Nozick also maintains that people are ends in and of themselves, and must be treated as such by a just system. This also gives individuals full ownership of themselves and their labor (as in Locke's theory), meaning that a system of forced redistribution that allows someone to own another's talents and abilities is unjust. At the same time, resources are not the same as talent and ability; there is not a sense of innate ownership of anything external to the body. In order for resources to be fairly appropriated, then, they must have been fairly obtained initially. If such was the case, then absolute ownership of property (that was fairly obtained) can exist and be transferred or distributed at the owner's discretion. Essentially, "Nozick argues for absolute property rights on the basis of the fact that people are ends in themselves" (Johnson, II. par. 5). As long as they are treated as such, a system is just even when it allows for the unfair distribution of property, provided that initial ownership was fairly obtained.