Thomas Hobbes, known for opining that the life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” presents a pessimistic view of man in the state of nature, explaining that a constant state of war exists where “the notions of right and wrong…have there no place” (Prompt 1). He reasons that because man is at odds with everyone in this state of nature and does not even own himself, there is no propriety whatsoever, negating the existence of property rights (Hobbes 393-394). Hobbes then invokes his laws of nature to explain that man’s desire for peace will lead him to enter into a contract with his peers where the transfer of rights to an all powerful sovereign occurs. The sovereign has complete control over all affairs of those entered into the social contract and his subjects are not allowed to dissolve the sovereign due to the fact that they created it (Lecture 9/24). One of the rights transferred to the sovereign is “the whole power of prescribing the rules, whereby every man may know, what good he may enjoy, and what actions he may do.” This transfer, translated, gives the sovereign complete authority over propriety, including property rights, in the commonwealth, which is justified by the reasoning that the total control of propriety prevents man from devolving back into the …show more content…
He believes that property rights exist in the state of nature due to their being natural rights, explaining that although land was given to man in common by God, through the mixing of his labor this land become his private property. In Locke’s view, man has ownership over his body, allowing him to use his labor to acquire private property in the state of nature (Lecture