private property: locke vs. rousseau

8/3/2019 Private Property: Locke vs. Rousseau

1/8

Michael Schearer

PRIVATE PROPERTY: LOCKEvs. ROUSSEAU

The concept of private property is a perplexing subject in the

field of political theory. Mans common claim of property is often

traced to the beginning of biblical times, where God says, ...Let us

make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule...over all

the earth,1 and further that ...I give you every seed-bearing plant on

the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in

it. They will be yours for food.2

The ancient political philosophers Plato and Aristotle both speak

about the role of property in the state, the former explaining how the

acquisition of private property leads toward unwanted plutocracy:

Once civil strife is born, the two parties begin to pull

different ways: the breed of iron and brass towards money-making

and the possession of house and land, silver and gold; while the

other two, wanting no other wealth than the gold and silver in the

composition of their souls, try to draw them towards virtue and the

ancient ways. But the violence of their contention ends in a

compromise: they agree to distribute land and houses for private

ownership; they enslave their own people who formerly lived as free

men under their guardianship and gave them maintenance; and,

1 Genesis 1:26 NIV (New International Version).2 Genesis 1:29 NIV.


2/8

PRIVATE PROPERTY: LOCKEVS. ROUSSEAU 2

holding them as serfs and menials, devote themselves to war and

to keeping these subjects under watch and ward.3

However, it was modern political philosophers who placed a

more important role on private property and the position it held in the

formation and continuation of the state. Twentieth century American

concepts of private property are often taken for granted, but it is

these modern political philosophers who developed was has evolved

into todays current understanding. A leading political philosopher

whose views on private property have translated into our current

understanding is John Locke, an intellectual source for our own

nations founding.

Another less-understood philosopher whose important views on

private property are seen as fundamental is the French political

theorist Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseaus views on private property

are often less well understood because of what appear to be

inconsistencies in what he wrote. Kennedy F. Roche writes that many

of Rousseaus references to property may prompt the belief that he

was by no means consistent in his attitude toward it...4 Further,

controversy still exists as to the real interpretation of his views. Using

our well-understood concepts of Lockes private property philosophy,

we can compare and contrast it with the less-understood concepts of

3 Plato. The Republic of Plato. Oxford University Press: London, 1945. p.270.4 Kennedy F. Roche. Rousseau: Stoic & Romantic. Methuen & Co., Ltd.:London, 1974. p. 87.


3/8


Rousseaus private property philosophy, to gain a better, clearer

picture of where both stand. Only then can the proper role of both

philosophies be grasped.

Let us first begin with the English political philosopher John

Locke. He writes that:

...though the things of nature are given in common, yet

man, by being master of himself, andproprietor of his own person,

and the actions or labour of it, had still in himself the great

foundation of property; and that, which made up the great part of

what he applied to the support or comfort of his being...was

perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others. Thus

labour, in the beginning, gave a right of property...5 (Emphasis in

original)

Since...preservation and the means of subsistence, are discovered by

natural reason, they are, ipso facto, derived from natural law.6

Further, this property did not require any express compact or social

contract to be validated. The social contract only served to preserve

property as a constitutional right. The origin of government was,

therefore, ...to secure property...[and] the translation into a

constitutional right of a fully validated right based on natural law.7

5 Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. ed. DavidWootton. Second Treatise of Government. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.:Indianapolis, 1996. p. 325.6 James Tully. A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his adversaries.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1980. p. 5.7 Mario Einaudi. The Early Rousseau. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, 1967.p. 139-140.


4/8


5/8


acquisition that exceeds natural need.10 Rousseaus most notable

work, his Social Contract, declares that:

Each member of the community, at the moment of its

formation, gives himself up to it just as he is: himself and all his

forces, of which his wealth forms a part...[This] fundamental

compact substitutes...a moral and legal equality for that physical

inequality (in the form of property) which nature placed among men.11

Rousseau writes that no citizen shall be rich enough to buy another

and none so poor as to be forced to sell himself.12

Stephen Ellenburg

observes that while possessions need not be absolutely identical for

every citizen...[but] there is very little range for unequal possession. 13

Ellenburg acknowledges that Rousseaus calculation does not leave

much room to move in either direction, for any contract between two

men violates Rousseaus rule.

Rousseaus Social Contractgoes on to explain that ...the right

which each individual has over his own property is always subordinate

to the right which the community has over all; without which there

would be no solidity in the social bond, nor any real force in the

exercise of sovereignty.14 What this amounts to is Rousseaus

10 Stephen Ellenburg. Rousseaus Political Philosophy: An Interpretation fromWithin. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, 1976. p. 223.11 Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Social Contract. Hafner Publishing Company,Inc.: New York, 1947. p. 19, 22.12 Ellenburg, p. 224.13 Ibid.14 Rousseau, p. 22.


6/8


assertion that private property is a civil right, but not a natural

right. Kennedy F. Roche writes that:

...he (Rousseau) speaks of property as inviolable and

sacred in so far as it remains a particular and individual right, but

as soon as it is considered as common to all citizens, it is submitted

to the General Will and that will can annihilate it...In

surrendering to the Sovereign all his material possessions, the

individual alienates to it all those natural rights to the possession

of such goods...15

Thus, the distinctions between Locke and Rousseau become

clearer. Both Locke and Rousseau agree that the foundation of

government exists to secure property rights. But the difference lies in

what this means to each of them. Locke believes that ...men who

entered into the social contract did already possess property by right;

all that was required was that the extent of each individuals right

should be made clear, and means found for defending his enjoyment

of it.16 Private property is a natural right, Locke asserts, and

governments are instituted among men to secure those natural rights

as constitutional rights.

Rousseau, on the other hand, saw a social contract which

embraced private property as the ...translation into tyrannical and

temporary institutions of a usurpation by the few at the expense of

15 Roche, p. 90.16 John C. Hall. Rousseau: An Introduction to his Political Philosophy.Schenkman Publishing Company: Cambridge, 1973. p. 44.


7/8


the many...a clever usurpation [changed] into an irrevocable right.17

Rousseau rejects private property as a natural right, arguing that only

the social contract gives legitimacy to private property. Further, he

concluded in his Discours sur lIngalit: If we follow the progress of

inequality in its different revolutions, we shall find that the

establishment of the law and of the right of property was its first

term.18 To Rousseau, the social contract took mans unwarranted

claim to private property and legitimized that claim. In turn, mans

natural equality is forever destroyed. Finally, the sovereignty of the

state cannot be exercised with any degree of force unless the right of

private property is subordinate to it. This presents a fundamental

disagreement with Lockes view that private property is a natural

right, and therefore, unalienable in character.

In conclusion, the concept of private property is a right that has

its roots in the earliest origins of government. For, as we have seen,

both Locke and Rousseau see the procurement of property as the

purpose for the formation of civil government. However, the meaning

of this formation allows us to see a clear distinction between the

private property views of Locke and Rousseau. Likewise, Rousseaus

once-confusing position becomes apparent. The social contract

solidifies Lockes natural right of property as a constitutional right,

17 Einaudi, p. 140.18 Rousseau. Ingalit, in Oeuvres, I, 108. Cited in Roche, p. 88.


8/8


while the same social contract, for Rousseau, legitimizes the

usurpation of resources, ultimately leading to inequality.

Finally, this important difference sets Locke and Rousseau apart

as ideological rivals. While the two share some similarities, the

divisions are distinct enough to establish an intellectual barrier.

Lockes private property views, respecting their origin in natural law

and defense by the social contract, are clearly liberal in the classic

sense. Rousseau social contract theory, on the other hand, borders on

the authoritarian, similar to those of Thomas Hobbes. These

differences, once clouded by uncertainty, now show themselves to be

an substantial division in the private property debate.

private property: locke vs. rousseau

Documents