scientific-journal-articles

CVPekpaideusis

ISSN: 2241-4665

Αρχική σελίδα περιοδικού C.V.P. Παιδαγωγικής & Εκπαίδευσης

Βιογραφικό σημείωμα συγγραφέως

Κριτικές του άρθρου

 

vipapharm-greek

 

13 Ιανουαρίου 2021

 

linep5

 

“Defining the right to property in the context of liberalism: Locke’s and Nozick’s views”

Toutoudaki Marina

 

 « Ορίζοντας το δικαίωμα της ιδιοκτησίας στο πλαίσιο του φιλελευθερισμού: οι απόψεις του Λοκ και του Νόζικ»

Τουτουδάκη Μαρίνα

 

line

Abstract

In the 19th century, as a result of the Enlightenment and the great revolutions of the previous two centuries, a new political ideology is formed, liberalism. One of the central themes of the new ideology is private property. This is the subject of the present study, which focuses on the views of two important liberal thinkers. John Locke, a leading figure of the 17th century, representative of the Enlightenment and exponent of the ideas of classical liberalism, considers private property a natural right. He associates it with Reason and with the right to freedom and argues that it arises as a result of personal work. He also recognizes its protection as an obligation of the state, since the creation of rules is required in order to ensure social consensus on the issue of the acquisition and management of citizens' personal property.

Robert Nozick, a representative of libertarianism, a form of liberalism of the 20th century, is also particularly concerned with the issue of private property. The convergence of the views of the two philosophers is obvious, as Nozick, like Locke, considers private property a natural right, which arises from personal work and must be protected by the state. Beyond the similarities, however, the time distance and the different social, economic and political context, in which the views of the latter are formed, are the elements that explain the differences which are also observed. Thus, going one step further, Nozick refers denies any state intervention aiming at mitigating property differences between citizens, treating such actions as a violation of human rights.

Περίληψη

Το 19ο αιώνα, ως απότοκο του Διαφωτισμού και των μεγάλων επαναστάσεων των δύο προηγούμενων αιώνων, διαμορφώνεται μια νέα πολιτική ιδεολογία, ο φιλελευθερισμός. Ένα από τα κεντρικά θέματα της νέας ιδεολογίας είναι εκείνο της ατομικής ιδιοκτησίας, το οποίο πραγματεύεται η παρούσα μελέτη, εστιάζοντας στις απόψεις δύο σημαντικών φιλελεύθερων στοχαστών. Ο Τζον Λοκ, κορυφαία προσωπικότητα του 17ου αιώνα, Διαφωτιστής και σημαντικός εκφραστής των ιδεών του κλασικού φιλελευθερισμού, συγκαταλέγει την ατομική ιδιοκτησία στα φυσικά δικαιώματα. Τη συναρτά με τον ορθό λόγο και το δικαίωμα της ελευθερίας και θεωρεί ότι προκύπτει ως αποτέλεσμα της προσωπικής εργασίας. Αναγνωρίζει, επίσης, ως υποχρέωση του κράτους την προστασία της, καθώς απαιτείται η δημιουργία κανόνων, ώστε να εξασφαλίζεται κοινωνική συναίνεση στο θέμα της απόκτησης και διαχείρισης της ατομικής περιουσίας των πολιτών.

Με το θέμα της ατομικής ιδιοκτησίας ασχολείται ιδιαίτερα και ο Ρόμπερτ Νόζικ, εκπρόσωπος του λιμπερταριανισμού, μορφής του φιλελευθερισμού του 20ου αιώνα. Είναι εμφανής η σύγκλιση των απόψεων των δύο φιλοσόφων, καθώς ο Νόζικ, όπως και ο Λοκ, θεωρεί την ατομική ιδιοκτησία φυσικό δικαίωμα, το οποίο προκύπτει από την προσωπική εργασία και πρέπει να προστατεύεται από το κράτος. Η χρονική απόσταση και το διαφορετικό κοινωνικό, οικονομικό και πολιτικό πλαίσιο, μέσα στο οποίο διαμορφώνονται οι απόψεις του, τον κάνουν να προχωρά ένα βήμα παραπέρα από τον Λοκ. Έτσι ο Νόζικ αρνείται κάθε κρατική παρέμβαση που αποσκοπεί στην άμβλυνση των ιδιοκτησιακών διαφορών μεταξύ των πολιτών, αντιμετωπίζοντας ενέργειες αυτού του είδους ως παραβίαση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων.

line

Table of Contents

 

Introduction. 5

Private property. 6

1.    John Lock. 6

2.    Robert Nozick. 10

Conclusion. 13

References. 14

 

Introduction

The Age of Enlightenment and the great revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries contributed decisively to the change of political ideology in Europe and in the U.S.A. Thus in the 19th century a new political theory, liberalism, appears. Rooted in previous revolutionary movements, it shakes the foundations of feudalism by bringing to the fore the radical demands of the rising bourgeoisie. The new theory evolves over time, moving from classical liberalism to more modern forms, such as social liberalism and neoliberalism. Liberal ideology is based on a set of beliefs and values ​​related to the concepts of individual, reason, justice and freedom. In this context the promotion of the right to private property becomes really important. It is seen as a way to free oneself from the shackles of feudal slavery and as a means of highlighting the autonomy of citizens, who have charisma, autonomous value and critical attitude towards the world [1].

This paper examines views about private property, as expressed in the context of liberalism, focusing on the ideas of the two most important representatives of liberal ideology, John Locke and Robert Nozick. The aim is to demonstrate how, despite the three centuries that separate them, Nozick's theories are essentially a continuation of Locke's, as they have much in common with the principles of classical liberalism, which Locke represents. On the other hand, Nozick’s different political, social and economic environment explains any differences.

 

Private property

  1. John Lock

John Locke (1632-1704), a leading proponent of the theory of "natural rights”, which are believed to have been given to man by God himself (life, liberty, property), is a leading figure of the Enlightenment and one of the first exponents of the earliest liberal theory, classical liberalism [2]. His theory of property is based on two elements, God and Reason. Regarding God, Locke believes that He gave the world to people in order to survive and to ensure the necessary comfort in their lives [3].

Locke also believes that before the establishment of organized societies, people lived in a "natural state”. According to his point of view, this is the state in which each person acts and disposes his possessions and himself the way he considers right. In the natural state everyone is equal, with only God being superior. Freedom has limits and the natural law prevails. Man, as a rational being, can understand this law and, as a consequence, organises his life accordingly to it [4]. Ownership is communal, so all the members of the “natural society” have the same rights in whatever nature offers them and even without the need for explicit contracts between them [5].

Nevertheless Locke takes it for granted that natural state could not continue indefinitely, as the individual differences and personal aspirations create inequalities, which consequently lead to conflicts, just as in the early English capitalism that Locke experienced. He argues that a social contract is needed, in order to maintain the necessary for any society peace and social order. As a result, the transition from the natural state to the political society is performed [6].

In the same way, natural communal ownership also could not continue indefinitely. Thus he accepts the need to define a criterion that will designate the transition from common ownership to another form of property, the private one [7], the protection of which is the main aim of the political society [8].  In this new type of society, private property is a prerequisite for participation in political processes, as in many cases only the property owners, who paid taxes, had political rights [9].

It is at this point that the liberal belief in the primacy of the individual and the importance of his natural rights becomes apparent. This view arises as a result of the collapse of feudalism, in which the concept of the individual exists only as a member of a group. It is, also, reinforced by the rationalism of the Enlightenment, and takes in the context of liberalism the form of an individualism, which insists on the issue of individual autonomy [10].

Locke considers personal work to be a decisive condition for the transition from common ownership to the private one [11]. It is his belief that God gave the world to all people. All of them are entitled to life, goods and pleasure, under the condition that they work in order to obtain the necessary livelihood. Work is the one and only means for any acquisition and, as a consequence, the necessary precondition for private property [12] [13]. This principle refers to property in land, in oneself and in artifacts as well [14].

God and Reason oblige man to work to "subjugate the earth" [15]. On the basis of Reason, since every person is considered the undisputed owner of himself, it is undoubtedly concluded that the product of his personal work is also his property [16]. Human toil is considered to detach the product of labor from the common divine inheritance, remove it from the “natural state” and lead to its appropriation, attaching it to the worker [17]. This, of course, presupposes that the individual is free to choose the way of disposing of himself and his toil. The concept of freedom is, after all, the supreme value of liberalism. It is divided into negative, if it is related -as in the case of Locke- to the right of acting "at will", independently of external interventions, and to positive, if it refers to the ability of the individual to form self sovereignty [18].

At the same time, work is the criterion according to which the value of things -for example of cultivated land- is determined and differentiated, while the differentiation of people's hard work justifiably leads to a change in the size of the acquired property [19]. Differences in people's industriousness also justify differences in their own property [20] [21]. This recognition consorts with the acceptance of diversity -and consequently of the tolerance of diversity- which is a key feature of liberalism [22].

Nonetheless there is always a basic parameter, which no one can ignore: personal effort can lead to the acquisition of individual assets only on the condition that there remain common goods of sufficient quantity and satisfactory quality for all people. In this case, “sufficient quantity” and “satisfactory quality” are defined by the amount of goods that a person can consume before they are worn out, in order to ensure survival and comfort. Therefore natural -in other words “moral”- law sets the limit to private property by creating moral constraints, as the survival and improvement of the lives of others are taken into account [23]. Exceeding this measure is an offense, because it is tantamount to claiming property disproportionate to an individual's needs. In the matter of acquiring property, therefore, justice does not depend on the size of the property but on whether part of it is destroyed due to uselessness [24].

As a consequence, individual property is treated as the outcome of human Reason and as a primary element of Freedom, since it is a free activity of self-ownership. It arises from the need for self-preservation, which is based on natural law, and the meaning of man as a "person" takes place only through its acquisition [25]. In addition, it is based on work, which is considered to increase the common property, since it offers greater income to humanity, improving the lives of all [26]. This "Protestant" idealization of work is considered the basic originality of Locke’s theory. Its utilitarian view, however, raises questions about the relationship with natural law, on which the philosopher bases it [27].

Nevertheless it becomes obvious that, concerning private property, the consent of the other members of the community is necessary in order to ensure a calm social life [28]. A typical example is the appropriation of common lands in England at the time when Locke formulated his theory: the land which the cultivators could use for grazing their sheep and for timber was privatized by feudal lords. By the "enclosure of common lands" they aimed at using them as pastures, in order to merchandise wool. In this way a large mass of proletarian peasants was created, who were often forced to abandon their villages and migrate to the cities. Their miserable living conditions often became the cause of strong social tensions and conflicts [29, 30, 31]. To control them the British government was eventually forced to pass laws on land grabbing and property acquisition. Thus, property becomes the cause of the creation of laws and of state institutions, through which the consequent peace and the improvement of the living conditions of all are ensured [32].

From the same data emerges the necessity of the use of money, which facilitates the exchange of perishable but necessary goods, in order to avoid their wretchedness [33]. With the use of money, therefore, the pre-political society restrictions of “sufficient quantity” and “satisfactory quality” are removed. As a result, money ensures the possibility of increasing wealth, as every person has the opportunity to exchange not only the goods that are in danger of being destroyed but also his own work with money, which is indestructible [34].  

 This way the transition to a new world order is achieved, where the recognition of the right to property does not stem from natural law but from the pursuit of benefit, while at the same time consensus and common definition of rules for the maintenance of social order are required. This makes the role of the state important for property protection. Of course, this recognition does not legitimize state interventions that go against to natural rights, interfering with citizens' property. According to Locke, such interventions are acceptable only with the consent of the majority. This view highlights the liberal belief in the need for the existence of the state, in order to ensure peaceful cohabitation and social stability. Nonetheless at the same time state’s detrimental effect on the issue of individual freedom is also recognized [35].

 

  1. Robert Nozick

During the 19th century the development of urban society becomes the starting point of an attempt of redefinition of civil rights, so that the new vision keeps pace with the developments of the time. Industrialization as well as the formation of the working class and the demand for workers' participation in politics lead therefore to a new approach to the issue of private property, which is no longer considered a prerequisite for the acquisition of civil rights. At the same time, a new policy for the formation of a welfare state is gradually being carried out, creating a great debate on taxation issues. This inevitably leads to a redefinition of basic elements of classical liberal theory, as income redistribution systems lead to a renegotiation of the concept of private property [36].  

Within this framework Robert Nozick (1938-2002), the leading representative of Libertarianism, a neoliberal theory of the 20th century, returns to the issue of property. In his time, the theocratic mentality of previous centuries has receded, while the issue of equality of citizens in all areas is strongly highlighted, as a consequence of the important political and military events of the 20th century. At the same time, the pursuit of the free market and the crisis of the welfare state turn philosophers into views, which consider man as a unit that seeks prosperity based on personal abilities, without adhering to the collective values ​​of earlier times [37].

At the heart of Nozick's theory of private property lies Locke's view of the existence and significance of inalienable natural rights. According, however, to Nozick’s point of view, based on the principles of natural justice, the most important of these rights is property. This right refers to the acquisition of goods and natural resources, but mainly to the ownership of oneself. The convergence with the negative view of freedom, as it is defined by Locke, is evident, in contrast to the approach of the concept observed in modern liberalism, since he argues that the consequence of self-ownership is the potentiality of the individual to act freely from external coercions and to dispose of himself and his property at will [38].

Nozick considers -as Locke also did- that whatever natural gifts the individual possesses are his undisputed property and ensure his exclusive ownership of every benefit that results from them. This emphasis on self-ownership leads him in the same way to the correlation with the right of private property: given the difference in physical gifts, the acquisition of assets of different value is expected and acceptable [39]. This acquisition, as Locke also argues, is legitimate, if it originates from personal work, which according to Nozick has been the way of acquiring property during all eras. In the theory of Nozick, after all, Locke’s distinction between “natural state” and organized society does not exist. In addition, Locke considers personal effort to be sufficient for the appropriation of things and land. On the contrary, Nozick, without including -as Locke did- God in his arguments, considers that personal labor establishes property rights over goods by increasing their value, but accepts the appropriation that comes from labour, only if it arises legally [40].

Nozick also recognises as legitimate the acquisition of property by any means, as long as it is based on legal certificates. According to the Nozick’s theory of ownership certificates, in addition to the primary acquisition through appropriation, the transfer is also a legal way, while at the same time the redress of any unjust and illegal acquisition is required [41]. According to Nozick, the property rights are absolute and co-possible [42]. They can be used only under the condition that they do not cause harm to others, so it is also imperative that any acquisition does not result in the deterioration of the lives of other members of society [43]. It is obvious, of course, that the negative term "deterioration" is not the same as the positive term "improvement" used by Locke, as "non-deterioration" is not always synonymous with improvement. On this basis, the possession of unique resources by a person is rejected, given the undeniable deterioration that will be caused in the lives of others [44].

From the above views the conclusion is drawn that Nozick sees man as aim and not as a means, so he considers that he can dispose of his property -even that of his own self-  as he wishes, free from any external coercion, thus exalting the property to the highest individual value. Although he is not interested -unlike Locke- in the usefulness of his property in increasing the common capital, he accepts that it also benefits society, as it supports innovative ideas, strengthens the most capable of its members and facilitates collective planning [45].

For the above reasons, Nozick believes -as Locke also did- that the state must intervene as little as possible in matters of property ("minimal state"). He, however, denies any connection of the minimal state’s intervention with natural law or with the satisfaction of the public interest, limiting the state duty to the protection of citizen property rights from violence and injustice. In this sense, social benefits or taxation for the redistribution of wealth and for the alleviation of the disadvantaged are unjust to those who have legally succeeded in acquiring property due to the superiority of their natural gifts, since it treats them as a means of dealing with collective problems [46]. Consequently, compulsory redistributive taxation is unacceptable, since it restricts the right of private property, notwithstanding that helps the needy survive. Such actions can only be done with the explicit consent of property owners, for example in the form of charity. Otherwise, state intervention constitutes a blatant violation of natural individual rights and essentially devalues ​​and enslaves people [47].

 

Conclusion

Chronologically Nozick belongs to modern liberalism, as he formulates his theories from the middle of the 20th century onwards, under conditions completely different from Locke, an element that explains the differences between them. However, despite the different socio-political context, the study of Nozick's view of private property immediately reveals the points of convergence with Locke's classical liberalism, as Nozick formulates points of view similar to the basic ideas of classical liberal theory. His views are in fact a continuation of the Locke’s theory, formed under the influence of a new social, political and economic context, which treats differently the role of the individual in the social and historical development.

 

           

 

References

[1] Heywood A: Political Ideologies. Epicenter, Athens, 2005: 71-72, 75, 115-123.

[2] Heywood A: Political Ideologies. Epicenter, Athens, 2005: 109.

[3] Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39: 414-432.

[4] Aggelides  M: The genesis of liberalism. Problems of the composition of the politician in theories of social contract. Thomas Hobbes – John Locke. Sakis Karagiorgas Fountation,  Athens, 1994: 136-141.

[5] Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 111.

[6] Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press, Athens, 2009:  163.

[7] Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39: 414-432.

[8] Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press, Athens, 2009:  164.

[9] Aggelides M: The theory of rights in modern liberalism: issues of critical reconstruction in the theories of R. Nozick, J. Rawls, R. Dworkin. The Greek Review of Social Research 1988, 71: 3-17.

[10] Heywood A: Political Ideologies. Epicenter, Athens, 2005: 77-79, 84, 107.

[11] Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39: 414-432.

[12] Aggelides  M: The genesis of liberalism. Problems of the composition of the politician in theories of social contract. Thomas Hobbes – John Locke. Sakis Karagiorgas Fountation,  Athens, 1994: 131.

[13] Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press, Athens, 2009:  175-176.

[14] Day JP: Locke on property. The Philosophical Quarterly 1966, 16: 207 - 220.

[15] Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 116.

[16] Day JP: Locke on property. The Philosophical Quarterly 1966, 16: 207 - 220.

[17] Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 112-113.

[18] Bandoros S: Introduction to Political Ideologies, Association of Greek Academic Libraries, Athens, 2015: 32.

[19] Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 122, 127.

[20] Aggelides  M: The genesis of liberalism. Problems of the composition of the politician in theories of social contract. Thomas Hobbes – John Locke. Sakis Karagiorgas Fountation,  Athens, 1994: 130-131.

[21] Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press, Athens, 2009:  175-177.

[22] Bandoros S: Introduction to Political Ideologies. Association of Greek Academic Libraries, Athens, 2015: 33.

[23] Day JP: Locke on property. The Philosophical Quarterly 1966, 16: 207-220.

[24] Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 120, 126-7.

[25] Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39: 414-432.

[26] Kymlicka W: Contemporary political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 212-213.

[27] Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39: 414-432.

[28] Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 119.

[29] Burns E: European History, v.1. Paratiritis, Thessaloniki, 1983: 184-186.

[30] Kymlicka W: Contemporary political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 211-212.

[31] Plaggesis G: New political and social philosophy. University Studio Press, Athens, 2009:  168.

[32] Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39: 414-432.

[33] Locke J: Second Treatise of Government. Gnosis, Athens, 1990: 125.

[34] Metaxopoulos A: The problem of private property in the theories of natural law and in modern liberal philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Kant. The Greek Review of Social Research 1980, 39: 414-432.

[35] Bandoros S: Introduction to Political Ideologies. Association of Greek Academic Libraries, Athens, 2015:107.

[36] Aggelides M: The theory of rights in modern liberalism: issues of critical reconstruction in the theories of R. Nozick, J. Rawls, R. Dworkin. The Greek Review of Social Research 1988, 71: 3-17.

[37] Heywood A: Political Ideologies. Epicenter, Athens, 2005: 119- 133.

[38] Kymlicka W: Contemporary political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 205-207.

[39] Kymlicka W: Contemporary political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 206-208.

[40] Nozick R: Distributive Justice. In: Mela L (ed) Essays on Contemporary Political Philosophy. Papazisis, Athens, 2018: 247-250.

[41] Nozick R: Distributive Justice. In: Mela L (ed) Essays on Contemporary Political Philosophy. Papazisis, Athens, 2018: 248-251, 262.

[42] Fried B: Does Nozick have a theory of property rights? In: Bader R, Meadowcroft J (Eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011: 232-233.

[43] Waldron J: Nozick and Locke: filling the space of rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 2005, 22: 81-110.

[44] Kymlicka W: Contemporary political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 205-207, 213-215.

[45] Kymlicka W: Contemporary political philosophy. Polis, Athens, 2005: 207,215-220.

[46] Waldron J: Nozick and Locke: filling the space of rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 2005, 22: 81-110.

[47] Fried B: Does Nozick have a theory of property rights? In: Bader R, Meadowcroft J (Eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011: 232-240.

 

line

 

Curriculum vitae

Marina Toutoudaki has studied Philology in the School of Philology of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She also holds a degree on Pedagogics and Teaching from the School of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE) and has received her Master of Education (MEd) from Hellenic Open University. For the past 3 years she has been studying towards a BSc in European Civilization in Hellenic Open University. She has also attended an one year course on teaching Greek as a foreign language (University of Patras) and has a 6-year experience on the subject, having taught several courses to foreign students. She speaks fluently English and Spanish and has a teaching license in Spanish.

From 1990 till 1998 she worked as a teacher in private schools, teaching Ancient and Modern Greek and working at the same time on literary editing. From 1998 until today she has been working as a teacher in public secondary schools. At the same time she has coordinated a series of innovative educational programs, such as Etwinning and Erasmus+ projects for teachers and students. She is also a columnist for many scientific and literary journals. Her interests lie in the areas of literature -mostly national and European-, sociology, pedagogical science and school administration.

line

 

linep5

 

© Copyright-VIPAPHARM. All rights reserved

 

vipapharm

 

linep5