Locke's Two Treatises of Government › Natural Rights: Life, Liberty, and Property

At the heart of Locke's political philosophy is his theory of natural rights. Every person, simply by being human, possesses rights to life, liberty, and property that exist independently of government. These rights are not gifts from the state. For Locke, they are natural endowments that government exists to protect. ::: {.callout-note title="Natural Rights"} Rights that belong to individuals by nature, prior to and independent of any government or social convention. For Locke, these include the rights to life, liberty, and property, which government is instituted to protect. ::: The right to life is fundamental. No one may take another's life except in self-defense or as punishment for violating the law of nature. This right grounds the prohibition on murder and also implies a duty to preserve oneself. The right to liberty means that no one is naturally subject to the will of another. We are born free, not as slaves or subjects. Any authority over us requires our consent. This does not mean we can do anything we want (natural law constrains us), but it means no human being has inherent authority to command us. The right to property is Locke's most innovative and influential contribution. In the state of nature, the earth and its resources are given to humanity in common. But how can private property arise from this common inheritance? Locke's answer is labor. > Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. When you mix your labor with something from the common stock, when you gather acorns, catch fish, or cultivate land, you make it your own. The labor you invest creates a property right. No one else can claim what you have worked to produce. This labor theory of property has important implications and limitations. Locke adds two provisos. First, you may only take as much as you can use before it spoils. Hoarding resources while others starve violates natural law. Second, you must leave "enough, and as good" for others. Taking from the common stock is legitimate only when it does not deprive others of the chance to do the same. ::: {.callout-warning title="Common Misconception"} Locke's property theory is often read as an unlimited defense of accumulation. But the spoilage and sufficiency provisos place significant constraints on legitimate appropriation. Whether these provisos can be satisfied in a world of scarcity remains contested. ::: Money complicates matters. Unlike food, money does not spoil, so the spoilage proviso no longer limits accumulation. People can now legitimately acquire more than they can immediately use by exchanging perishable goods for durable currency. Locke sees this as a tacit agreement that enables greater productivity and prosperity. Critics argue it opens the door to the very inequalities the provisos were meant to prevent.