Property Essay

History and Law Website Home Supreme Court and Public Policy - LS 138

U. S. Supreme Court Cases - Edited Property and Liberty - LS 140

PROFESSOR R. BEN BROWN'S LAW AND HISTORY SITE

Syllabus for LS 140 Pride and Prejudice John Locke

Property in Eve Online Rousseau on Property and Inequality

Karl Marx - The Communist Manifesto J.S. Mill - Principles of Political Economy

George - Progress and Poverty George - Ode to Liberty Finkelman -Batter Up

Popov v. Hayashi Treaty of Waitangi Johnson v. McIntosh Dawes Act

Somerset v. Stewart Bryan v. Walton State v. Mann State v. Boyce

Rose - Property Law and the Rise, Life, and Demise of Racially Restrictive Covenants

Shelley v. Kraemer Bell v. Maryland

Sumner - W hat Social Classes Owe to Each Other Veblen - Theory of the Leisure Class

Roe - Backlash Cassidy review of Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-first Century

Ostrom - Sustainable Development Boomer v. Atlantic Cement

Dan Ariely Ted Talk Dan Pink Ted Talk Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon

Just v. Marinette County Kelo v. New London

Reich - The New Property - Read pp 771-777 Goldberg v. Kelly

Lessig - Free Culture - Read Chap. 5 Lessig - Remix (Optional Source)

SF Homeless Project

Chapter V of Second Treatise of GovernmentChapter V of Second Treatise of Government

Of PropertyOf Property

24. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us that men, being once born, have a right to their

preservation, and consequently to meat and drink and such other things as Nature affords for their subsistence, or

"revelation," which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah and his sons,

it is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115. 16), "has given the earth to the children of men," given it to

mankind in common. But, this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty how any one should ever

come to have a property in anything, I will not content myself to answer, that, if it be difficult to make out

"property" upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam and his posterity in common, it is impossible that

any man but one universal monarch should have any "property" upon a supposition that God gave the world to

Adam and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity; but I shall endeavour to show how men

might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without

any express compact of all the commoners.

25. God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best

advantage of life and convenience. The earth and all that is therein is given to men for the support and comfort of

their being. And though all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as

they are produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature, and nobody has originally a private dominion exclusive of

the rest of mankind in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state, yet being given for the use of men, there

must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other before they can be of any use, or at all

beneficial, to any particular men. The fruit or venison which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure,

and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his- i.e., a part of him, that another can no longer have any

right to it before it can do him any good for the support of his life.

26. Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own

"person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may

say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath

mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by

him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that

excludes the common right of other men. For this "labour" being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no

man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in

common for others.

27. 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. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask, then, when

did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home?

or when he picked them up? And it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. 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. And will any one say he had no right to

those acorns or apples he thus appropriated because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was

it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary,

man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by

compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in,

which begins the property, without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part does not

depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus, the grass my horse has bit, the turfs my servant has

cut, and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my

property without the assignation or consent of anybody. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that

common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.

28. By making an explicit consent of every commoner necessary to any one's appropriating to himself any part of

what is given in common. Children or servants could not cut the meat which their father or master had provided

for them in common without assigning to every one his peculiar part. Though the water running in the fountain

be every one's, yet who can doubt but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of

the hands of Nature where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby

appropriated it to himself.

29. Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian's who hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods who hath

bestowed his labour upon it, though, before, it was the common right of every one. And amongst those who are

counted the civilised part of mankind, who have made and multiplied positive laws to determine property, this

original law of Nature for the beginning of property, in what was before common, still takes place, and by virtue

thereof, what fish any one catches in the ocean, that great and still remaining common of mankind; or what

amber-gris any one takes up here is by the labour that removes it out of that common state Nature left it in, made

his property who takes that pains about it. And even amongst us, the hare that any one is hunting is thought his

who pursues her during the chase. For being a beast that is still looked upon as common, and no man's private

possession, whoever has employed so much labour about any of that kind as to find and pursue her has thereby

removed her from the state of Nature wherein she was common, and hath begun a property.

30. It will, perhaps, be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns or other fruits of the earth, etc., makes a right to

them, then any one may engross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of Nature that does

by this means give us property, does also bound that property too. "God has given us all things richly." Is the voice

of reason confirmed by inspiration? But how far has He given it us- "to enjoy"? As much as any one can make use

of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in. Whatever is beyond this

is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus

considering the plenty of natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders, and to how

small a part of that provision the industry of one man could extend itself and engross it to the prejudice of others,

especially keeping within the bounds set by reason of what might serve for his use, there could be then little room

for quarrels or contentions about property so established.

31. But the chief matter of property being now not the fruits of the earth and the beasts that subsist on it, but the

earth itself, as that which takes in and carries with it all the rest, I think it is plain that property in that too is

acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so

much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, enclose it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right

to say everybody else has an equal title to it, and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot enclose, without the

consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind. God, when He gave the world in common to all mankind,

commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it of him. God and his reason

commanded him to subdue the earth- i.e., improve it for the benefit of life and therein lay out something upon it

that was his own, his labour. He that, in obedience to this command of God, subdued, tilled, and sowed any part of

it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury

take from him.

32. Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there

was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never

the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of

does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he

took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land

and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

33. God gave the world to men in common, but since He gave it them for their benefit and the greatest

conveniencies of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed He meant it should always remain

common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational (and labour was to be his title to it);

not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. He that had as good left for his improvement

as was already taken up needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another's

labour; if he did it is plain he desired the benefit of another's pains, which he had no right to, and not the ground

which God had given him, in common with others, to labour on, and whereof there was as good left as that

already possessed, and more than he knew what to do with, or his industry could reach to.

34. It is true, in land that is common in England or any other country, where there are plenty of people under

government who have money and commerce, no one can enclose or appropriate any part without the consent of

all his fellow-commoners; because this is left common by compact- i.e., by the law of the land, which is not to be

violated. And, though it be common in respect of some men, it is not so to all mankind, but is the joint propriety of

this country, or this parish. Besides, the remainder, after such enclosure, would not be as good to the rest of the

commoners as the whole was, when they could all make use of the whole; whereas in the beginning and first

peopling of the great common of the world it was quite otherwise. The law man was under was rather for

appropriating. God commanded, and his wants forced him to labour. That was his property, which could not be

taken from him wherever he had fixed it. And hence subduing or cultivating the earth and having dominion, we

see, are joined together. The one gave title to the other. So that God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so

far to appropriate. And the condition of human life, which requires labour and materials to work on, necessarily

introduce private possessions.

35. The measure of property Nature well set, by the extent of men's labour and the conveniency of life. No man's

labour could subdue or appropriate all, nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part; so that it was

impossible for any man, this way, to entrench upon the right of another or acquire to himself a property to the

prejudice of his neighbour, who would still have room for as good and as large a possession (after the other had

taken out his) as before it was appropriated. Which measure did confine every man's possession to a very

moderate proportion, and such as he might appropriate to himself without injury to anybody in the first ages of

the world, when men were more in danger to be lost, by wandering from their company, in the then vast

wilderness of the earth than to be straitened for want of room to plant in.

36. The same measure may be allowed still, without prejudice to anybody, full as the world seems. For, supposing a

man or family, in the state they were at first, peopling of the world by the children of Adam or Noah, let him plant

in some inland vacant places of America. We shall find that the possessions he could make himself, upon the

measures we have given, would not be very large, nor, even to this day, prejudice the rest of mankind or give them

reason to complain or think themselves injured by this man's encroachment, though the race of men have now

spread themselves to all the corners of the world, and do infinitely exceed the small number was at the beginning.

Nay, the extent of ground is of so little value without labour that I have heard it affirmed that in Spain itself a man

may be permitted to plough, sow, and reap, without being disturbed, upon land he has no other title to, but only

his making use of it. But, on the contrary, the inhabitants think themselves beholden to him who, by his industry

on neglected, and consequently waste land, has increased the stock of corn, which they wanted. But be this as it

will, which I lay no stress on, this I dare boldly affirm, that the same rule of propriety- viz., that every man should

have as much as he could make use of, would hold still in the world, without straitening anybody, since there is

land enough in the world to suffice double the inhabitants, had not the invention of money, and the tacit

agreement of men to put a value on it, introduced (by consent) larger possessions and a right to them; which, how

it has done, I shall by and by show more at large.

37. This is certain, that in the beginning, before the desire of having more than men needed had altered the

intrinsic value of things, which depends only on their usefulness to the life of man, or had agreed that a little piece

of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, should be worth a great piece of flesh or a whole

heap of corn, though men had a right to appropriate by their labour, each one to himself, as much of the things of

Nature as he could use, yet this could not be much, nor to the prejudice of others, where the same plenty was still

left, to those who would use the same industry.

Before the appropriation of land, he who gathered as much of the wild fruit, killed, caught, or tamed as many of

the beasts as he could- he that so employed his pains about any of the spontaneous products of Nature as any way

to alter them from the state Nature put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire a

propriety in them; but if they perished in his possession without their due use- if the fruits rotted or the venison

putrefied before he could spend it, he offended against the common law of Nature, and was liable to be punished:

he invaded his neighbour's share, for he had no right farther than his use called for any of them, and they might

serve to afford him conveniencies of life.

38. The same measures governed the possession of land, too. Whatsoever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made

use of before it spoiled, that was his peculiar right; whatsoever he enclosed, and could feed and make use of, the

cattle and product was also his. But if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on the ground, or the fruit of his

planting perished without gathering and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithstanding his enclosure, was still

to be looked on as waste, and might be the possession of any other. Thus, at the beginning, Cain might take as

much ground as he could till and make it his own land, and yet leave enough to Abel's sheep to feed on: a few acres

would serve for both their possessions. But as families increased and industry enlarged their stocks, their

possessions enlarged with the need of them; but yet it was commonly without any fixed property in the ground

they made use of till they incorporated, settled themselves together, and built cities, and then, by consent, they

came in time to set out the bounds of their distinct territories and agree on limits between them and their

neighbours, and by laws within themselves settled the properties of those of the same society. For we see that in

that part of the world which was first inhabited, and therefore like to be best peopled, even as low down as

Abraham's time, they wandered with their flocks and their herds, which was their substance, freely up and down-

and this Abraham did in a country where he was a stranger; whence it is plain that, at least, a great part of the land

lay in common, that the inhabitants valued it not, nor claimed property in any more than they made use of; but

when there was not room enough in the same place for their herds to feed together, they, by consent, as Abraham

and Lot did (Gen. xiii. 5), separated and enlarged their pasture where it best liked them. And for the same reason,

Esau went from his father and his brother, and planted in MountSeir (Gen. 36. 6).

39. And thus, without supposing any private dominion and property in Adam over all the world, exclusive of all

other men, which can no way be proved, nor any one's property be made out from it, but supposing the world,

given as it was to the children of men in common, we see how labour could make men distinct titles to several

parcels of it for their private uses, wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for quarrel.

40. Nor is it so strange as, perhaps, before consideration, it may appear, that the property of labour should be able

to overbalance the community of land, for it is labour indeed that puts the difference of value on everything; and

let any one consider what the difference is between an acre of land planted with tobacco or sugar, sown with

wheat or barley, and an acre of the same land lying in common without any husbandry upon it, and he will find

that the improvement of labour makes the far greater part of the value. I think it will be but a very modest

computation to say, that of the products of the earth useful to the life of man, nine-tenths are the effects of labour.

Nay, if we will rightly estimate things as they come to our use, and cast up the several expenses about them- what

in them is purely owing to Nature and what to labour- we shall find that in most of them ninety-nine hundredths

are wholly to be put on the account of labour.

41. There cannot be a clearer demonstration of anything than several nations of the Americans are of this, who are

rich in land and poor in all the comforts of life; whom Nature, having furnished as liberally as any other people

with the materials of plenty- i.e., a fruitful soil, apt to produce in abundance what might serve for food, raiment,

and delight; yet, for want of improving it by labour, have not one hundredth part of the conveniencies we enjoy,

and a king of a large and fruitful territory there feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day labourer in England.

42. To make this a little clearer, let us but trace some of the ordinary provisions of life, through their several

progresses, before they come to our use, and see how much they receive of their value from human industry.

Bread, wine, and cloth are things of daily use and great plenty; yet notwithstanding acorns, water, and leaves, or

skins must be our bread, drink and clothing, did not labour furnish us with these more useful commodities. For

whatever bread is more worth than acorns, wine than water, and cloth or silk than leaves, skins or moss, that is

wholly owing to labour and industry. The one of these being the food and raiment which unassisted Nature

furnishes us with; the other provisions which our industry and pains prepare for us, which how much they exceed

the other in value, when any one hath computed, he will then see how much labour makes the far greatest part of

the value of things we enjoy in this world; and the ground which produces the materials is scarce to be reckoned

in as any, or at most, but a very small part of it; so little, that even amongst us, land that is left wholly to nature, that

hath no improvement of pasturage, tillage, or planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste; and we shall find the benefit

of it amount to little more than nothing.

43. An acre of land that bears here twenty bushels of wheat, and another in America, which, with the same

husbandry, would do the like, are, without doubt, of the same natural, intrinsic value. But yet the benefit mankind

receives from one in a year is worth five pounds, and the other possibly not worth a penny; if all the profit an

Indian received from it were to be valued and sold here, at least I may truly say, not one thousandth. It is labour,

then, which puts the greatest part of value upon land, without which it would scarcely be worth anything; it is to

that we owe the greatest part of all its useful products; for all that the straw, bran, bread, of that acre of wheat, is

more worth than the product of an acre of as good land which lies waste is all the effect of labour. For it is not

barely the ploughman's pains, the reaper's and thresher's toil, and the baker's sweat, is to be counted into the bread

we eat; the labour of those who broke the oxen, who digged and wrought the iron and stones, who felled and

framed the timber employed about the plough, mill, oven, or any other utensils, which are a vast number, requisite

to this corn, from its sowing to its being made bread, must all be charged on the account of labour, and received as

an effect of that; Nature and the earth furnished only the almost worthless materials as in themselves. It would be a

strange catalogue of things that industry provided and made use of about every loaf of bread before it came to our

use if we could trace them; iron, wood, leather, bark, timber, stone, bricks, coals, lime, cloth, dyeing-drugs, pitch,

tar, masts, ropes, and all the materials made use of in the ship that brought any of the commodities made use of by

any of the workmen, to any part of the work, all which it would be almost impossible, at least too long, to reckon

up.

44. From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of

himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) had still in himself the great foundation

of property; and that which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being,

when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in

common to others.

45. Thus labour, in the beginning, gave a right of property, wherever any one was pleased to employ it, upon what

was common, which remained a long while, the far greater part, and is yet more than mankind makes use of Men

at first, for the most part, contented themselves with what unassisted Nature offered to their necessities; and

though afterwards, in some parts of the world, where the increase of people and stock, with the use of money, had

made land scarce, and so of some value, the several communities settled the bounds of their distinct territories,

and, by laws, within themselves, regulated the properties of the private men of their society, and so, by compact

and agreement, settled the property which labour and industry began. And the leagues that have been made

between several states and kingdoms, either expressly or tacitly disowning all claim and right to the land in the

other's possession, have, by common consent, given up their pretences to their natural common right, which

originally they had to those countries; and so have, by positive agreement, settled a property amongst themselves,

in distinct parts of the world; yet there are still great tracts of ground to be found, which the inhabitants thereof,

not having joined with the rest of mankind in the consent of the use of their common money, lie waste, and are

more than the people who dwell on it, do, or can make use of, and so still lie in common; though this can scarce

happen amongst that part of mankind that have consented to the use of money.

46. The greatest part of things really useful to the life of man, and such as the necessity of subsisting made the first

commoners of the world look after- as it doth the Americans now- are generally things of short duration, such as-

if they are not consumed by use- will decay and perish of themselves. Gold, silver, and diamonds are things that

fancy or agreement hath put the value on, more than real use and the necessary support of life. Now of those good

things which Nature hath provided in common, every one hath a right (as hath been said) to as much as he could

use; and had a property in all he could effect with his labour; all that his industry could extend to, to alter from the

state Nature had put it in, was his. He that gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples had thereby a property

in them; they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only to look that he used them before they spoiled, else

he took more than his share, and robbed others. And, indeed, it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard

up more than he could make use of If he gave away a part to anybody else, so that it perished not uselessly in his

possession, these he also made use of And if he also bartered away plums that would have rotted in a week, for

nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted not the common stock; destroyed

no part of the portion of goods that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselessly in his hands. Again, if

he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its colour, or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a

sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him all his life, he invaded not the right of others; he might heap

up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the

largeness of his possession, but the perishing of anything uselessly in it.

47. And thus came in the use of money; some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that, by

mutual consent, men would take in exchange for the truly useful but perishable supports of life.

48. And as different degrees of industry were apt to give men possessions in different proportions, so this

invention of money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them. For supposing an island, separate

from all possible commerce with the rest of the world, wherein there were but a hundred families, but there were

sheep, horses, and cows, with other useful animals, wholesome fruits, and land enough for corn for a hundred

thousand times as many, but nothing in the island, either because of its commonness or perishableness, fit to

supply the place of money. What reason could any one have there to enlarge his possessions beyond the use of his

family, and a plentiful supply to its consumption, either in what their own industry produced, or they could barter

for like perishable, useful commodities with others? Where there is not something both lasting and scarce, and so

valuable to be hoarded up, there men will not be apt to enlarge their possessions of land, were it never so rich,

never so free for them to take. For I ask, what would a man value ten thousand or an hundred thousand acres of

excellent land, ready cultivated and well stocked, too, with cattle, in the middle of the inland parts of America,

where he had no hopes of commerce with other parts of the world, to draw money to him by the sale of the

product? It would not be worth the enclosing, and we should see him give up again to the wild common of Nature

whatever was more than would supply the conveniences of life, to be had there for him and his family.

49. Thus, in the beginning, all the world was America, and more so than that is now; for no such thing as money

was anywhere known. Find out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his neighbours, you

shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge his possessions.

50. But, since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of man, in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has

its value only from the consent of men- whereof labour yet makes in great part the measure- it is plain that the

consent of men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth- I mean out of the bounds

of society and compact; for in governments the laws regulate it; they having, by consent, found out and agreed in a

way how a man may, rightfully and without injury, possess more than he himself can make use of by receiving

gold and silver, which may continue long in a man's possession without decaying for the overplus, and agreeing

those metals should have a value.

51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of

property in the common things of Nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it; so that there could

then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and

conveniency went together. For as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no

temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for

encroachment on the right of others. What portion a man carved to himself was easily seen; and it was useless, as

well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.

James Madison

Powered by Squarespace. Content is for presentation purposes only.