Locke And Rousseau Analysis

Isabelle Topper
Political Science 175s
4/14/17
Question 2: Locke and Rousseau: Private Property as a Source of Evil?
John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are two important political philosophers whose work helped shape notions of the state of nature and property rights. In Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government, and Rousseau’s, Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract, they discuss their respective views on the state of nature, and how the government should solve the problems posed by political life. Both Locke and Rousseau propose a government with limited powers based on an original consent, but their arguments diverge with regard to property rights. Locke argues that property rights preexist society, and that men leave the state

Rousseau writes, “The first man, who after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, is the real founder of civil society” (2, 113). He argues that one of the first revolutions in history was when men started becoming more industrial and creating for themselves (2, 116). This revolution forced men to begin developing unfulfillable desires and needs, and created a sense of competition between individuals. Once this notion of amour-propre developed, property became more important; Rousseau explains, “It became the interest of men to appear what they really were not. To be and to seem became two very different things, and from this distinction sprang haughty pomp and deceitful knavery” (Discourse, 2, 122). While inequality was non-existent in the state of nature, the onset of property and therefore the establishment of society caused inequality to arise. For Rousseau, private property was the demise of the state of nature. Property forced individuals to begin competing with one another and enter into society, thereby restricting their individual freedoms and equality within the state of

Locke’s argument seems to lose its stamina when the notion of money as property is introduced, because it suggests that therefore property is boundless and man is entitled to as much money as he makes for himself. Rousseau, in my opinion, offers a stronger argument that property leads to inequality. Particularly with the importance of money in modern society, private property has become both hereditary and seemingly unlimited, which allows people to monopolize resources through their monetary wealth, thereby perpetuating