Discussion Of John Locke's Theorization Of Power

Property is one of the key concepts discussed in modern political thought. In order to understand its relationship with power, whether property rights are natural or emerge following the establishment of the state must be analysed. The two differing perspectives on this lead to different conceptualisations of the basis for the sovereign’s power, and the extent to which it is legitimate with regards to interfering in property rights. Locke argues that property rights are natural and therefore the sovereign obtains its authority from the desire for the legal protection of this natural right. In contrast, Hobbes, Rousseau and Marx do not believe that private property is natural and therefore believe that those with power derive their authority from the desire of man for the formation of property rights.
The basis of this is that human beings are owners of themselves, and therefore by extension, an individual’s labour is their own property. Therefore, despite Earth’s goods initially being communal, created by God for humans to sustain themselves, this changes once man ‘mixes his labour’ with them. It then becomes his private property, so long as sufficient goods are left for others. “He hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”. However, his justification for private property so long as other’s positions are not worsened can be critiqued using a Marxist perspective. It can be argued that the accumulation of property by one man by extension leads to less property being available for another, leading to an inequality of power. This contradicts the basis of his argument; that all men are made