|
All of this talk about the state of nature and
natural rights drives me a little crazy. Locke
puts forward his theory that the labor we expend
on something makes it ours. If we plant a field,
it becomes ours. The "Law of reason makes the
Deer, that Indian's who killed it." But
he's completely wrong about this. The historical
fact is that the Indian in question, the one who
killed a deer, lived in a society. That society
had developed rules about property, and probably
did not recognize the deer as belonging to the
person who killed it at all. It is far more
likely that the rules of property developed in a
way that guaranteed the survival of the group.
The Indian who killed the deer probably had a
claim to part of it, but others in the group had
a claim to part of it as well.
Locke is imposing individualistic ideas from
17th-century England on people in other
societies and cultures. He is universalizing
ideas and attitudes about property found in his
own situation instead of looking to see what
other cultures have actually been like.
If you look around the world you will see that
people have always existed in groups; and
property rights in early societies (societies
without government as we know it) included rules
that guarantee the survival of the group. The
whole notion of individuals wandering about
claiming pieces of land or the animals they
killed is completely ahistorical. For thousands
of years people lived in small hunting and
gathering societies. In those societies people
had no concept of private property similar to
our own.
Even as a thought experiment, Locke's state of
nature is a failure. If we ask what people in
groups without government would actually have
thought was a fair way to control or allocate or
divide up property, it is most likely that they
would have wanted rules that would benefit the
group as much as the individual. Anyone who
thinks that they would have come up with rules
similar to the classical liberal or modern
libertarian rights of property is nuts.
|