Prıvate Property ın Locke and Rousseau
With the advent of the
modern state concept, many political concepts have been discussed. One of the
most important is the concept of private property. The concept of private
property has been the subject of controversy over its formation and legitimacy
in its political philosophy for many years. The contract theory, which started
with Hobbes, was once again discussed by John Locke, one of the most important
philosophers of the 18th century, and J. J. Rousseau, one of the important
philosophers of 19th century. Before Locke and Rousseau explained the concept
of private property, they studied the state of nature, like Hobbes. Based on
the state of nature, they explained the formation and necessity (legitimacy) of
the concept of private property. In doing so, both had similar and different
points.
Before starting the discussion, I would like
to explain the concept of property in general as a definition. According
to the Oxford Dictionary, property is a things or things that are owned by
someone. In other words, it actually emphasizes the relationship
between the possessed and the possessor, and at its very core has the right to
possess. It has no longer been a thing or an object and has
attained the form of a right. Since property does not clearly define
the problem of ownership in the historical context, it has also created the
development of different forms of ownership. We can simply classify them as
private property, common property and state property. These different forms of
ownership play an active role in shaping political, economic and social life. With
the dominant effect of the capitalist social order, private property is the
first thing that comes to mind as a definition. As a concept, private property
has been reproduced in various ideological ideas and has found its own place
with the effect of many functions. In the 17th century, Locke became a leading
figure in the defense of private property. In the 17th century, Locke
was one of the first thinkers in defense of private property.
He explained his political philosophy along
with the contract theory and state of nature. According to him, in the state of
nature, people are free and equal. Of course, this liberty is not unlimited, it
is to the extent allowed by natural law. Natural law is a kind of conscience
and reason here. In this way, people live together peacefully. According to
Locke, man is a cleaver being, but conflict arises between each other, because
not everyone cannot fully use their mind, and this create a state of war. People
should be prevented extortion from each other’s rights. These rights are life,
liberty and ownership. To do this, not everyone is fair, so a superhuman
institution is required and the state beings to form. The concept of property
has two different meaning in Locke. The first is a broad concept of property is
like life, freedom and estates, and the second is a property in a narrow sense.
Locke states that the state is legitimate as long as it protects property. Of
course, this is a broad sense using. Private property is a natural right for
Locke such as the right to life and right to freedom, which is the fundamental
right of man, because there is labor in the formation of private property.
Locke has legitimized the legitimacy of private property as it is also a
product of man. In production, a person adds something from himself, gets
tired, shed sweat and needs it to continue his life. Of course, this is not an
unlimited right. Since God gives these blessings to everyone, everyone has the
right to do so, and this right is sacred. Everyone gets enough property to meet
their own needs. There are 3 main limits for this, the qualification limit,
the deterioration limit and the labor limit. As can be seen, Locke associated
private property with labor outside of fundamental. With the advent of Money,
limit of disruption disappears and a kind of capital beings to emerge. Labor
turns into wage labor with limited land. In this way, the right to property is
a natural right of man, such as life and freedom. Along with natural rights,
the state must protect property, because the Powers that make up the state
include the right to private property. In Rousseau, however, the situation is
different from this, it is not the protection of property but unrest of
civilization.
.jpg)
J. J. Rousseau was born in Genova in 1712.
Although his personal life was turbulent, he developed himself well and became
a resource with his ideas not only his own times, for many politicians and
revolutionaries. Especially he is one of
the most prominent thinkers of the French Revolution, which caused great burns
all over the world. Rousseau's The Social Contract and Discourse on Inequality
are among the most important works of modern political thought. He died in
France in 1778.
In Rousseau, while expressing his own
political philosophy like Hobbes and Locke, he went down to the origin of man
and state. According to him, while Hobbes and Locke examined the state of
nature, they depicted the man of his age, whereas the man in the state of
nature was very different. According to him, the man in state of nature does
not know power, property and competition, he does not work and is lazy, they
only meet their basic needs and are satisfied with this situation. But after a
while he cannot fight nature alone and enters solidarity with people. Thus,
private property is born, with the start of private property, a group of
minority majority exploits and the state of war begins. Rousseau leaves Locke
at this point, because private property was sacred and a mandatory right for
Locke, but with the birth of private property for Rousseau, conflict and
competition arose. In other words, private property became the source of evil.
And then riches formed the state, saying that law would protect everyone equally
in order to secure their own property. All in all, private property is a
legitimate right in Locke, but it is suspicious in Rousseau. Although Rousseau
thinks that human nature is good like Locke, he states that social institution makes
him unfree and unequal. In other words, he states that people are social with
private property but lose their freedom. Of course, this was not the case only
for the poors, it was the case among the riches, they become addicted to people.
But he does not suggest returning to the old system or a communal state to
ensure this again. He indicates a general will, there is pluralistic
management, not minority management. He suggests public-individual cooperation
with a sense of citizenship to make people freer. So, he actually wants to
put private property in a moderate form.
As a result, it seems to me that although
the two thinkers have set out from the state of nature, they have reached
different conclusion. Locke stated that the state to be formed by the rules of
law will protect property and liberate people. He said that the aim of the
state was to protect one’s life, freedom and property. For this reason, he
considered private property legitimate because it helped to ensure human liberty
and found it compulsory. As for Rousseau said that with the formation of
private property, free man was enslaved. He states that private property
creates insecurity and competition among people and creates an infinite
inequality. Of course, when specifying these, we should also consider the
period they live in. Locke drew attention the problems of concepts of life,
liberty and property in the period of England Civil War. On the other hand,
Rousseau drew attention the gap created by inequality between people. The two
thinkers are still philosophers who have very important and unique ideas in
terms of political philosophy.
REFERENCES
Andrew Heywood - Political Theory: An Introduction
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/property
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder