Politics has been the center of everything since humans began to expand their social lives into communities. The success and failures of communities have been influenced by the political cultures employed to govern these societies. Philosophers have tried their best in understanding the backbone of good governance, but the debate is never settled as proponents of a particular philosophical thought tend to be critics of the other. WWII presented one of the most heated debates on the best form of governance with the emergence of America and USSR as the superpowers.
The employment of democracy and communism in the U.S. and U.S.S.R respectively intensified the debate that earlier famous and controversial philosophers had tried to answer centuries before the WWII. Democratic governance is built on respecting human rights and individualism whereas communism is based on community power (Ward, 2010). However, there are different types of government which can be explained using political theories regarding private property ownership. By focusing on two of the most influential philosophers, Locke and Hobbes, it will be possible to under the role of private property in the politics. The objective will set to bed the question, is private property the backbone of just political order or is it an obstacle to just politics?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Summary
Locke is termed as one of the most influential contributors to modern political setting and governance. In his theory of natural law and natural rights, he argues that the law is a concept of influenced by nature but must be acceptable to the people. He bases his claims on the creation story but is quick to state that unlike the Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites by God; people sacrifice some of their rights to form a government that will provide them with security and enforces the laws of the land (Ward, 2010). He is clear that individuals living in the under the state of nature tend to contradict the natural law by arguing that in the state of nature, there is no supreme authority to judge people who live according to the law of reason. These arguments are based on the assumption that humans are ethical and will not interfere with the other. However, he was quick to note that in the case two people are willing to sacrifice some of their rights to a third person, the person has the legitimate authority to protect their interests. The legitimate government formed by these people relinquishing their rights to empower a single person can only be legitimate if the person chosen protects the benefits of these people by providing security against invaders or other opponents who may aim to destroy the people.
The description is complicated, but it can be easily be depicted in a democratic society or a monarchy. In the two treaties, he describes a man as an owner of his own thus eradicating the notion of masters owning slaves. The two treaties depict that each can own property from their labor. The essence that a person possesses his/her body makes it clear that he/she owns the work. Ownership of private property is encouraged in his theory, but the ownership is restricted. Locke claims that there are three restrictions on property ownership as described in the quote. “One may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils, one must leave “enough and as good” for others and one may only appropriate property through one’s labor.” (Ward, 2010). The three restrictions make it clear that property can only be earned through labor and encourages ownership based on needs and ability to preserve it. The failure to expound on most of the restrictions have provided critics with the loopholes to criticize Locke’s arguments; it is evident that the corruption and other means of theft should not be used to gain private properties. Lastly, the fight for liberty among the community from the legitimate rulers and the restrictions of property ownership can be viewed as a platform where individuals can expound their exploits ethically.
Hobbes
Unlike Locke’s arguments on sovereignty, Hobbes was a key proponent on respect of the government. He argued that once the community has sacrificed their rights to the legitimate authority, they become subjects of their masters. The argument is based on the assumption that every individual is motivated by their selfish interests. The selfish desires would result in conflict if two people were focused on similar properties or ventures. The resulting outcome would be war and fear. Hobbes notes everybody is afraid to lose his/her life to another and in the acknowledgment that even the weakest person can kill the most energetic person through organizing or tricking them, there is lack of avoiding war in the long-run.
Therefore, based on securing the selfish interests and security, humans in the society opt to have an authority that will judge and prosecute those who do not obey their orders. The chosen authority should be respected, and people must be obedient to authority since they are superior to themselves. The person legitimately elected will have power over the entire community and his family will rule over the subjects without any resistance from the subjects (Davis, 2013). Hobbes states that since the people sacrificed their rights to form the governing or civil society, they do not have the right to question or change the personnel. The arguments tend to empower monarchs. On the issue of private property, Hobbes is clear that the government owns everything. Therefore, the leader can choose what to do with any property in the territory. Hobbes is adamant that the state of nature is inapplicable, therefore, sovereignty is only achievable by empowering the government to protect the common laws. These claims support the idea of the government owning everything and limiting the public from owning private property.
Discussion
Both Locke and Hobbes based their arguments on the state of nature, but they presented different ideas. Locke assumption that humans are ethical and will respect the natural law is opposed to the formation of governments but realizing that people can choose to have a leader they may decide to sacrifice some of their rights to one person. The leader is mainly a figure to spearhead the community rather than exploit them or force them to comply with his rules. Under this assumptions people still retain some of their rights, for instance, they own their bodies and labor which they can use to acquire private property. The value of money as the commodity to purchase since it is durable instrumental in the two treaties, but it must be governed to ensure that laws formed by the people are respected. Hobbes, on the other hand, is adamant that the state of nature is overwhelmed by the selfish individual desires that result in war (Davis, 2013). The power sacrificed to the authority or government should be supreme and ensure that the government can enforce law and order in the society.
Hobbes is critical of the nature of social contact compared to Locke but fails in the presentation of the private property. In the instance that everything is owned by the government, and used as the leaders wish, the sovereignty that he discusses is limited at best. The monarchs can decide to exploit the subjects or use the resource for their gains at the expense of the subjects. The continued oppression will eventually result in a war that was a reason for the creation of the government in the first place (Davis, 2013). Locke demonstrates that government that enforces the wishes of the people is likely to be adored by the citizens thus limiting conflicts. The ability to labor to acquire property is essential in any community since it motivates people to work harder than they previously did to improve their living standards. Wealth restricted by the three restrictions ensures that there is no issue of grabbing, corruption, murder, and crimes since the people understand that the rule of law and morality will prevail such unethical practices. Hobbes, on the other hand, assumes that the powerful government will curb the selfish interests without anticipating the chances of immoral governance that may oppress the people, use public land to award friends and families among other amoral actions that power brings. Therefore, reviewing the different assumptions and ideas proposed by Locke and Hobbes, it is evident that the theories are unlikely to be successful as they are in the real world (Davis, 2013). However, Locke’s understanding that the legitimate government must oblige to the wishes of those who sacrifice their power to protect them, own property and enhance liberty are instrumental in democratic societies.
The assumptions may hinder such perfection but Locke’s idea suites the current world that is determined in respecting human rights, enhancing economic growth and development while ensuring stability (Ward, 2010). Hobbes arguments hinder personal liberty and may facilitate dictatorial regimes that have proven to be unproductive in the real world situation. Therefore, based on the Locke’s and Hobbes’s theories, private property is the backbone of political order.
References
Davis, M. (2013). Locke (and Hobbes) on “Property” in the State of Nature. International Philosophical Quarterly , 53 (3), 271-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ipq201353330
Ward, L. (2010). John Locke and modern life . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
