Theories of John Locke

¶ … John Locke

Locke's Theories of "Property" & Taxation

According to John Locke, the 17th century English political and social philosopher, although the entire earth and all its riches have been gifted by God to all men (and as such are the common property of the entire mankind), every individual has a "property" in his own "person." Thus the origin of all "property" is in each "person" himself. This "property" of the individual is the labor that he puts into his work during his lifetime. It is Locke's contention that nobody has any right to such labor but himself. He believed that every individual takes some part of the common "gift" that God has given to all mankind in the form of the earth's resources, and by adding to that resource by his own labor an individual makes that resource into his own "property." And just as no one has any right to take away a man's labor, no one has any right to take away this "property" from an individual, either.

By "property" Locke does not just mean the fruits of an individual's labors, it is an all-encompassing generic name given by him to the "lives, liberties, and estates of the individuals." Natural Rights and the right of property are the central principle of John Locke's political philosophy and he repeatedly emphasizes in his writings that these rights are the basis of human freedom and governments exist only to protect them.

It is this expansive and libertarian concept of "property rights" that was adopted by the founding fathers of the United States in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and by revolutionary France in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. All these documents recognize that no government can take away the fruits of an individual's labor and intellect without his consent and without compensation.

John Locke recognized that large expense was involved in running governments and that the individuals in a 'commonwealth' must contribute towards the 'charge' of running the government by way of taxes. In his opinion, it was only fair that everyone, who enjoyed the fruits of protection provided by the government, must pay something from his "property" and his labor as tax to the government. However, he emphasized that the collection or levy of all such taxes must be by their consent only, or at least by the consent of the majority. Levying of any taxes without the consent of the people was considered to be an invasion of the fundamental law of property by Locke, which he thought would subvert the end of government.

John Locke's views about the levying of taxes only with the consent of the people were adopted by the American leaders in their struggle for independence against the British when the British authorities levied unjust taxes such as the 'stamp act' in 1765. Much later, during India's independence movement in the twentieth century (again, from the British rule), Gandhi led a successful movement against the 'salt tax.'

State of Nature

According to John Locke every human being is born equal in a State of Nature. In this state, everyone has full freedom to order his actions and to do as he pleases with his person and all that he possesses without being bound by the will of any other person. Only the Laws of Nature, which are ordained by God and are self-evident, constraint his actions.

Locke emphasizes the equality of power that each individual possesses in such a state of nature where no one is under subjugation to another human being. This state of nature gives every individual his personal liberty and freedom, but Locke recognizes that this liberty is not a license. The Laws of Nature restrict this freedom to the extent that an individual may not destroy himself or other creatures in his possession. He may, also, not harm others or take away the rights of others in anyway. In a perfect state of nature each individual would have the right to restrain others from violating the laws of nature, (i.e., violating the rights of others, doing harm to others or committing crimes) and to punish the offender to the extent of his crime.

The problems that could arise in such conditions are obvious. For example, it is not possible to expect people in general to be absolutely fair in judging the extent of punishment or retribution to be extracted from an offender when their own interests are involved. It is also desirable to have common standards or laws for distinguishing between 'right' and 'wrong.' This can only be possible when people consent to live in a society and abdicate their own individual rights to some extent to a 'government' and agree to abide by the rules and laws for the sake of mutual benefit. According to Locke's political philosophy, they do so only to gain advantages that they would not have in a state of nature.