By Richard J. McGowan and Tyler R. McGowan

Guest columnists

Had Thomas Jefferson handed in the Declaration of Independence to satisfy a writing assignment, the professor would have suspected him of plagiarizing Locke’s Second Treatise. In section 6 of that treatise, Locke says that in a state of nature, wherein no government yet exists, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Jefferson’s Declaration transformed the thought into “life, liberty and happiness,” suggesting that happiness and “possessions” are related.

How would life, liberty and possessions be protected without law? Locke’s answer: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law,” protects life, liberty, and property. Reason “obliges” people from hurting others and from taking their property. The same law of reason obliges people to help others: “when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind.”

In other words, we should share our good fortune with those in need.

Yet, Locke’s “Second Treatise on Civil Government” has been claimed to justify limitless acquisition of property. The idea of limiting property through virtuous restraint is not usually found in several widely used business ethics textbooks. Scholars chide Locke for advocating unbridled acquisition of property. An article in a scholarly journal stated, “Simply put, he [Locke] seems to justify the unlimited amassing of the earth’s fruits” and that Locke advocated “for unlimited accumulation of wealth.”

That Locke advocated “unlimited accumulation of wealth” misrepresents Locke’s thought.

Locke’s view of property, from his “Second Treatise of Government,” distinguishes property. He clearly limits property in a state of nature but allows inequality of property by “voluntary consent” once government is formed. Locke begins “Of Property” by suggesting that “property,” in its most immediate sense, is land. Locke says that all the earth and its contents belong to “men in common” (26) and that land can only be considered an individual’s own once “he has mixed his labor with [land]” (27). His famous labor theory of property says “Whatsoever then he [man] removes out of the state that nature has provided” (27) constitutes property. In other words, the right to property is prior to the formation of government. Nevertheless, restrictions on property existed.

The restriction on property in a state of nature is plainly stated: “It will perhaps be objected to this that ‘if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, etc., makes a right to them, then any one may engross as much as he will.” To which I answer: not so.” (31) Locke cannot be clearer: in a state of nature, where reason must be followed, individuals cannot engross endless amounts of property. Further, men are allowed property “at least where there is enough and as good left in common for the others.” (27)

Governments, formed by voluntary association and democratic processes, might also restrict property. Locke says, “by consent … [people came to] agree on limits between them and their neighbors, and by laws within themselves settled the properties of those of the same society.” Locke strongly defends the right to property but also limits property, thereby enabling free market advocates and advocates of socialism to claim Locke’s support.

How, then, can Locke’s strong position on property rights and his clear restrictions on property be reconciled?

The simple answer is that Locke followed Christian ideas. He knew full well “that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mathew 20.23) and that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, but with God, all things are possible.” (Matthew 20.24) The classically educated Locke could also rely on Aristotle’s “Golden Mean.” Rich people should be neither vulgar with their wealth nor stingy. Virtue is found in the middle.

But that is up to the individual and the individual’s circumstances. Individuals must be virtuous in owning property; individuals must be reasonable and take others into account when using their property.

Richard McGowan, Ph.D., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, has taught philosophy and ethics cores for more than 40 years, most recently at Butler University. Tyler McGowan, a civil engineer, grew up in Indianapolis. He currently oversees the dismantling of Three Mile Island. Send comments to [email protected].