Definition of property through the scope of john locke and thomas hobbes.

Mar 16

Author: Boris Atanasov, Chief Legal Analyst.

I. INTRODUCTION

Property, the concept that played, and still plays, an important role in legal and political philosophy as well. But what is property? My favorite definition is that property is a set of rights, entitlements, and duties among people with respect to things. Property also determines how individuals relate to resources, land, and wealth within a political community, and it also shapes the relationship between individuals and the state at some point. For many years, scholars have tried to answer one simple question: is property a natural right or is it created by political authority and legal systems? And the two most influential legal philosophers who addressed this question, referring to John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, are going to be the main subjects that this article is going to put an emphasis on.

Both philosophers are well known for their “social contract” theory, but they also attempted to explain the idea behind property. Hobbes argued that property exists only because of the authority of the state and the laws established by a sovereign power. According to him, without the role of a stable authority that enforces laws regarding property and controls it, there will be a constant battle for resources, eventually leading to Hobbes’s idea of the state of nature. On the other hand, we have Locke, with a different approach. He believed that property is a natural right that individuals possess even before the creation of political institutions. Locke sees property more as a natural right rather than just a fragment necessary for preventing chaos. According to him, the role of the government is to protect property rather than create it. Their contradiction reflects a deeper philosophical question - is property a natural right belonging to individuals, or is it a legal construction produced by political authority?

II. LOCKE: THE STATE OF NATURE, NATURAL RIGHTS AND PROPERY THROUGH LABOR

To understand Locke, we need to take his work Second Treatise of Government (a work on political philosophy) under consideration. His idea of the natural state differs from the one of Hobbes. He believes that in the state of nature people are free and equal, and they are governed by natural law, and human reason will prevail over human desires, avoiding absolute anarchy. Natural law establishes certain basic moral rules that individuals are expected to respect. According to Locke, human beings possess natural rights that belong to them since birth, and no authority can take them away. Such rights, that Locke identifies, are life, liberty, and property. In this sense, property is not created by political authority but exists as a part of our natural rights even before entering a certain political society.

Locke’s idea of how property operates is one of the most influential in political philosophy. The English philosopher argues that the application of labor to natural resources contributes to the creation of an individual’s patrimony (property). Labor transforms something that previously belonged to everyone into something that belongs to a particular individual.

The formula is simple:

Labor + Raw material = Property

Let me give an example. When a person cultivates land, harvests crops, builds a structure, or produces goods, he mixes his labor with natural resources. Through this process, the individual establishes ownership over the product of that labor. Locke believed that labor creates value and therefore justifies private property. This theory was extremely influential, and still is, in my opinion, because it connects property rights with productivity and human effort rather than political privilege or inherited power.

III. GOVERNMENT AS A PROTECTOR OF PROPERtY

Locke believed that the primary function of the government is to protect individuals’ natural rights, and especially propertyin that sense. In the state of nature there is one problem: whenever a conflict arises, there is no neutral entity or authority capable of resolving disputes. Therefore, individuals agree to establish a government that can enforce laws and protect rights. From Locke’s perspective, the idea of the government is to protect property, not to create it.

In this framework, political authority and its power are limited because they exist for the purpose of safeguarding rights that individuals already possess (natural rights). And here is the important part: John Locke emphasized the bilateral aspect of the social contract, meaning that if a government fails to protect property or abuses its power by violating these rights, the citizens have the right to resist or replace the ruling authority. An idea that is interpreted as the modern idea of constitutionalism and modern political liberty.

The only function of the authority is to protect the labor that people applied to raw materials, guaranteeing their natural rights. I do believe that’s a very interesting approach and optimistic in some way. Natural law is fundamentally a theory in the eyes of John Locke and makes the explanation of property disputable. However, Locke is not the only one with an explanation about the relationship between property, individuals, and authority.

IV. HOBBES: THE STATE OF NATURE AND PROPERTY AS A PRODUCT OF LAW

In Hobbes’s famous work Leviathan (1651), there is a contrasting view of human society. Analogically, like John Locke, Hobbes begins with the concept of the state of nature, but his description is far more pessimistic. The natural state, according to him, is characterized by constant fear and insecurity. He believes that without a political authority people will battle each other, seek recognition, and compete with each other in order to preserve their own survival, because resources are limited. Hobbes even described such a scenario as “the war of every man against every man.” In such an environment, individuals cannot rely on trust, stability, or cooperation. Without a structured legal order or functioning institutions to regulate human behavior, each person must rely on his own strength to secure resources and protect himself from others. Therefore, the concept of the social contract to Hobbes is this – people give their rights and sovereignty to a higher authority, but they do not possess the right to take it down. Full power is given to the authority in order to prevent the natural state.

Furthermore, for Hobbes, the existence of property depends entirely on political authority. In the state of nature, individuals may temporarily possess objects or land but cannot truly own them. Since there is no authority capable of enforcing rules or resolving disputes, any possession can be taken by force at any time. Consequently, stable ownership cannot exist in such conditions. Additionally, Hobbes argues that property becomes meaningful only after people create the social contract. It is because only social rules and laws can regulate the patrimonial relationships between individuals and define what ownership is. In simple words, the sovereign determines what belongs to whom and guarantees that property rights are respected through enforcement. Therefore, property is not a natural right according to Hobbes, but rather a product of a legal system.

V. HOBBES’S IDEA OF SECURITY BEFORE PROPERTY

Hobbes believes in the complete opposite of Locke. The primary goal of political authority is firstly to provide security and prevent violence. Stability and peace must exist before individuals can safely enjoy property or any sort of economic activity. Therefore, if there is no strong authority, there will be no one capable of maintaining order, and society will collapse into chaos. Property rights are subordinate to the authority of the state. By creating a relationship between people and authority, the possible future product is patrimony, of course regulated by the legal order.

Since property is not a natural right, society must comply with the authority’s norms for behavior. Hobbes is very clear in Leviathan: for him people have naturally ingrained animal instincts, so therefore human reasoning will not prevail if there is a state without institutional mechanisms. The problem I am addressing here is what happens if the sovereign abuses its power over people and property. In Locke’s social contract we have taken into consideration the bilateral aspects, but in Hobbes’s perspective there is no such thing. People must obey the sovereign and let the relevant institutions enforce laws regarding property. In my opinion, in a contemporary context such a view would not be possible to apply, taking into consideration the capitalistic world we live in, but I do believe that a hundred years ago Hobbes’s approach and definition of property were preferable to implement rather than Locke’s too optimistic view.

VI. CONCLUSION

The theories of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are undisputedly among the most influential and relevant whenever there is a discourse regarding property and political authority. The two interpretations give us a clear understanding of how intellectuals viewed the world at that time. From Locke, who believes that people have natural rights and that one of them is property, to Hobbes’s “darker” view of human behavior and political authority. One believes that by applying labor to raw materials, patrimony is created, while the other advocates for the concept of an imperative state power, firstly ensuring the safety of people inside a certain society and then regulating and enforcing laws regarding property, as well as defining it. Or, as I will interpret it, natural law against legal positivism.

This disagreement also provides us with a deeper understanding of how differently both philosophers viewed life. Despite these differences, both theories continue to influence modern debates about property, economic rights, and the relationship between individuals and the state. And I believe that by addressing and analyzing the ideas of historical intellectual figures like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, we can answer controversial questions whose answers are still being sought even nowadays.

Author: Boris Atanasov (Law student at Sofia University and Global Law student at the University of Turin)

E-mail: borisatanasov22@gmail.com

LinkedIn: Boris Atanasov

Mihail Gaydarov