2
0
In political and philosophical discourse, the nexus between labour and property has been a longstanding focal point. One of the stars who grappled with this longstanding interplay was none other than John Locke, a fine thinker that graced our British Isles.
I read this passage from Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 5: ‘The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.’ When he says this, he is talking about extracting the fruits of nature by his own labour. So when a person applies their labour to something that was previously held in common or was in a natural state, they transform it and make it their property. This could involve activities like picking apples from trees, mining ore, farming, or any other productive labour that adds value to the resource.
For Locke it was one’s labour that made something belong to someone—here’s more for example when gathering forage: ‘That labour put a distinction between them and common that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right.” – Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 5
Originally all the fruits of the earth are ownerless and up for grabs to any person who appropriates it for himself by the work of his own sweat. Labour transfers ownership from the commons to the private right of that labouring individual. The coveted object, by its association to the individual’s labour, gives the latter right to recognition of being his property. So the energy you invest through the toil and trouble of procuring something becomes yours in the eyes of society. In a phrase, we should call this: Private Right through Labour
But here’s the thing, private right through labour is not a universal principle because if a man is employed by somebody else to do work, say as a farm hand picking strawberries in a field for a rich farmer, then despite the efforts of his own labour in picking and harvesting the strawberries they do not belong to him because he is operating within the framework of a pre-existing agreement or employment relationship. However, if a labourer had independently acquired the land or the strawberries and then put in the labour to cultivate or harvest them, then Locke’s theory would suggest that the labourer could claim ownership based on the transformative power of their labour.
So one thing is very important here—context! We have seen that the “Private Right through Labour” principle can be nullified or overridden by the terms of an employment relationship. In such cases, the ownership of the products of labour generally belongs to the employer rather than the labourer, as the labour is conducted within the bounds of an arrangement where ownership has been predetermined—yeah! Welcome to Capitalism baby!
“He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. “ – Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 5
Picking up and stuffing acorns or apples in your hemp bag would of course would be permissible under conditions that did not have political, economic and social power structures already at play! Now, let’s indulge in a little thought experiment: imagine you’re taking a leisurely country walk one day, embracing the serenity of nature and the joy of discovery. As you amble along, you stumble upon an apple tree standing gracefully near the treeline. The sight of its ripe, crimson apples sparks a sense of delight and a mild pang of hunger. Those tantalizingly delicious apples seem to invite you, practically begging to be plucked. Your fingers itch to reach out and grasp the lowest hanging fruit, and in a spontaneous moment, you do just that.
Unbeknownst to you, the very land upon which the apple tree has taken root is claimed by a landlord—so are you committing theft? Again, context is key!
Let’s entertain a thought experiment for the sake of it. Say there’s an extra-terrestrial planet far beyond our solar system embedded with precious resources. If I donned my spacesuit and travelled there on a spaceship, trotting about on a planet bereft of any people. Would my action of reaching out a hand to grip a chunk of gold, make the precious ore become my property? According to Locke’s theory unowned resources are considered “common” until an individual’s labour is applied to them. Without competing ownership claims or recognized property norms, my labour becomes the primary basis for ownership—so yes the golden ore become mine.
This discourse between labour and property is not confined to the realm of philosophy; it is deeply embedded in the mode of human life. Every day we see it at play, a living testament to the tangible impact of labour, as well as the intricate relationship between labour and ownership. It offers a window into the essence of property, revealing how the transformative touch of human effort shapes the landscape of possession.
Locke’s ideas—though sprung from a brain that lived centuries ago where gentlemen wore powdered wigs—have left a stubborn mark. A mark that transcends mere words on paper. As progress goes on, we find ourselves guided by the enduring insights of Locke, who illuminated the path between labour’s toil and rightful possession. In a world where economic and political dynamics continue to shape the contours of ownership, Locke’s philosophy serves as a foundation—a cornerstone that we can use to guide our understanding of the principles that govern our societies. Locke’s ideas prompt us to contemplate not only the past but also the future—a future where the dialogue between labour and ownership will continue to influence the course of the evolving nature of human society.
