Henry: Locke and Smith on Inequality, Property, and Government

By

John Locke and Adam Smith highlight two distinct accounts of the origins of and relationships between inequality, property, and government.

Locke asserts that the state of nature is one "of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal" (Locke 8). Locke uses the word "equality" to describe a type of natural equality where no person has disproportionate power over another. Thus, for Locke, equality is a natural phenomenon. Likewise, Locke argues that property is a natural phenomenon that emerges from the state of nature: "Whatsoever then [man] removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property" (Locke 19). For Locke, property is central to human nature and not dependent on government. That said, Locke believes that government has a role to play in ensuring property rights. Locke describes civil government as "the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature" (Locke 12). Specifically, Locke says that "the increase of lands, and the right employing of them, is the great art of government" (Locke 26). Thus, while property exists in the state of nature, government plays a role in protecting property rights. Locke explains that "an inequality of private possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value on gold and silver" (Locke 29-30). Here, Locke argues that material inequality arises not through government action but through the development of durable money that stores its value.

Unlike Locke, Smith describes material inequality as a natural phenomenon that emerges from the state of nature. He says that while "while among hunters there is no regular government... the appropriation of herds and flocks introduced an inequality of fortune" (Smith 404). Here, Smith uses the word "inequality" to describe a type of material inequality where the distribution of goods is uneven. Smith, unlike Locke, sees inequality rather than equality as a natural phenomenon. Smith argues that "inequality of fortune... was that which first gave rise to regular government" (Smith 404). Smith posits that "till there be property, there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and defend the rich from the poor" (Smith 404). Smith, like Locke, argues that government exists to protect property rights. That said, while Locke argues that property rights are a natural phenomenon that emerges from the state of nature, Smith argues that property rights are a social phenomenon. He writes that "private property in land never begins till a division be made from common agreement" (Smith 460).

Locke argues that the state of nature is one of equality and that government arises to protect natural property rights. Conversely, Smith argues that the state of nature is one of inequality and that government arises to enshrine inequality via property rights.

-Henry Long

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more