Defectiveness Of Locke's Property Right Theory

John Lock was an important British philosopher of the late seventeenth century. The political theory reflected in his Two Treatises of Government had great influence on Thomas Jefferson, which is most noticeable in the latter's Declaration of Independence. Although both these documents contain statements of the idea of natural right, they are greatly different in one way: Locke's natural right triad"life, liberty and property"was changed to Jefferson's version of"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."Scholars have formed various opinions about the reason for the absence of Locke's"property."The present writer thinks that the reason for that may be interpreted by the defectiveness in Locke's notion of property right as a natural right.The defectiveness in Locke's notion of property right as a natural right is firstly reflected in the foundation of Locke's natural right theory—the State of Nature. According to Locke, it is a state of perfect freedom and equality. People live within the restrictions of the Law of Nature, without interference from others. However, the binding force of this law is unreliable because, with everyone being the judge of their own behavior, there is no impartial judge to determine whether a person is guilty, or how a criminal should be punished in property disputes.The defectiveness in Locke's notion of property right as a natural right is also reflected in Locke's theory of the acquisition of private property—the labor-mixing theory. By mixing his labor with commonly owned materials, a person is justified to have a property right over these products. Locke was inconsistent in his own theory of means to private property because"his labor"means both the labor of a person's body and the labor a person unfairly obtains from other people, who do not have the right over what they mix their labor with.The defectiveness in Locke's notion of property right as a natural right is still reflected in the limitations he set for private property—the Lockean proviso and the spoilage rule. The former one refers to the requirement that when one appropriates anything from the nature, there must be"enough, and as good left for others."The latter means that a person's property right extends to whatever he has mixed his labor with and can consume before it spoils. While the former one is unrealistic concerning the fact of scarcity, the latter is meaningless when money emerges, because money would never spoil.Because of the defectiveness in Locke's notion of property, it is not fully justified to be a natural right. As it is problematic in itself, it may be the reason for the absence of it in Jefferson's version.