Locke’s Private Property Theory Cannot Justify the Economic Inequality We Observe Today
Introduction

In 2015, more than 1 percent of families living in the United States generated over 25 times what other families of the remaining 99 percent generated (Kluegel & Smith, 2017). This discovery is being realized as the rich keep getting richer while the poor become even poorer, as observed in the US.

Locke starts by explaining his theory of private property by determining how people start to possess property apart from the ordinary resources offered to humankind. The key feature that defines a given part of private property is called labor, as the person who operates the “labor that eliminates [the good] from the common natural condition that it was left in” gives him ownership of the property (Locke, 2002; 30). Locke asserts that the common natural resources are available to every individual, but one takes ownership of a specific good when a person provides a certain amount of labor on the good. In consideration to this argument, Locke refers to the concept that, opportunities are made available to everyone, and it is therefore upon the individual to take advantage of the opportunity provided and perform labor, with earnings available for the person to relish. Well, this seems utopian, right? This might be because in the real world, opportunities are restricted to the majority and therefore, the particular source of inequality, whether economically or politically, and therefore the main source of existing social classes (Kluegel & Smith, 2017). Consequently, this paper provides an argument that supports the statement which states that Locke’s private property theory is not able to justify the current economic inequality observed today.

Background Information

Locke states that, in the “natural state”—the original condition where each individual had an equal right to the available natural resources made available by the “voluntary hand of Nature”—nobody had “a private authority, exclusive to the rest of humankind,” over such resources. But these resources would have been unproductive for the survival of mankind and their benefit unless they could be operated by mankind for their personal benefit. So how is it possible to justify the change from the unowned property to private ownership? How can an individual legitimately assert an exclusive right to the use of a given resource that, in its original state, could be utilized by anyone? Locke’s argument of this problem continues to be highly contentious among critics. Locke’s theory has been applied to justify most concepts from the laissez-faire to the welfare state and even full-blown socialism. Which of these contradictory interpretations should be covered in my study of Locke’s political ideas is a judgment call, and I honestly remain unsure of my final decision. I dread that most of my followers will limited interest in the distinct points of the Lockean scholarship. Most of those details may however be of interest to specialists.

Argument

Locke's critiques reveal that private property according to the two different types of utilities requires diverse justifications. According to Locke, when one picks some apples from a tree or cultivate a virgin land, then he not only take ownership of the apples or the agricultural produce, but he also owns the tree which produced the apple or the land that he cultivated. Therefore, the labor theory of value is used to justify the ownership of an individual only on the specific product of his labor, and not on the method of production applied...…between King and his subject was similar to that of father and child, and thus it followed reasonably that private property could be only be given by the crown. This is the statement that Locke firmly reputed. God, he argued, had not granted exclusive property rights to the monarchy. The doctrine of natural rights and natural law uphold the existence of private property prior to the government.

Conclusion

According to the argument stated above, it is obvious that Locke’s private property theory cannot be used to justify the economic inequality that we witness today. Indeed, Locke’s theory does not fully justify why the Oil-rich country of Nigeria is not wealthy, although it has wealthy individuals there, who are largely linked to the state. Also, it doesn’t put into consideration Switzerland’s per capita income (per capita GDP [PPP] of $51,262) and of Luxembourg (per capita GDP [PPP] $89,012) and the Country of Hong Kong (per capita GDP [PPP] $50,551), which are very high and still, they don’t relate to the wealthy natural resource of Nigeria. It is necessary to note that there are numerous vital perspectives that weigh down a philosophical argument. In the case of Locke’s private property theory, the said aspects have greatly changed. For instance, the concept of land inheritance and that of limited resources. One of the common factors between the countries that have quite small differences in economic inequality and those that have huge differences between the rich individuals and the poor is how they exercise their rights. It is therefore fascinating to research on how the exercise of rights affects the distribution of wealth within a given place, and to what extent.

…