1

POLS 2900 – Perspectives on Politics

Professor Mawhinney

Property and the State: A Comparison Between Hobbes and Locke

Fernanda Cherini

York University
 2

Hobbes and Locke introduced some radical notions for the time with their theories,

bringing concepts like freedom and liberty of all individuals. They both share similar ideas,

such as the purpose of the State, but Hobbes and Locke reach conclusions on very different

grounds. Both authors disagree on the circumstances that would lead to the creation of

political power and how this power should be exercised. To better illustrate the differences

and similarities between Hobbes and Locke, this essay will first go over each author’s view

on property and what it means for them. Then, it will discuss Hobbes’ and Locke’s

understanding about the state of nature, and how that affected property. Their view on the

state of nature also influenced why they thought a political authority, the State, is necessary,

and what are its powers.

Property

Hobbes and Locke have dwelled on the matter of property, including the subject

itself and other issues related to it, like the state of nature and political authority. An

effective way to start this essay is to look at each author’s perception of property, or rather,

how one dedicated a whole theory for property while the other did not. Therefore, the first

difference between Hobbes and Locke is on the focus and attention given to the issue of

property. Both authors understood that human beings are moved by their desires, and

accumulating property is one of them (Introductory Notes on John Locke, p. 3). They both

do not consider it as something bad or immoral, but they do have a different perception of

it. Hobbes merely sees this desire as a given fact about human nature, not judging it as

good or bad, but simply as the reality. Locke goes much further than Hobbes, justifying the
 3

accumulation of property as a moral good for everyone (Introductory Notes on John Locke,

p. 6).

To understand how Locke makes such justification, we must look at his theory of

property; which is based on the principle of “self-property”. Locke calls “self-property”

the fact that every individual has property in their own person because we have jurisdiction

over our body and mind (Locke, 1980, Chapter V, Sect. 27, p. 19). Stemming from this

notion, he deduces that everything your own body or mind produces or modifies is naturally

yours. Thus, the determinant to what makes something your rightful property is the labour

you put in it (Sect. 27, p. 19). Even if an apple falls from a tree that exists in nature, without

anyone having planted it, the “labour” of you picking up the fruit makes the fruit your

property. However, if it depends on your labour for you to accumulate property, it means

that accumulation is limited, since there is a limit to how much you can work (Sect. 36, p.

22). Another constraint that Locke identifies is leaving enough resources for others to enjoy

too. Nonetheless, Locke does not see that as a problem, since he had the idea that there are

many lands unexplored, especially in the Americas (Sect. 33, p. 21). People should also

not accumulate more than they can consume because it would be a waste of resources if

the goods perished (Sect. 31, p. 21).

The introduction of money, however, removed these constraints and allowed the

unlimited accumulation of property. Previous problems were eliminated: money could

easily purchase more labour, there would always be more money to leave to others, and

money does not spoil (Sect. 47-48, p. 28-29). Locke does not end his discussion about

unlimited property there, as mentioned, he considers this unlimited accumulation as a

 4

moral good for everyone (Sect. 37, p. 23). Unlimited property accumulation promotes

increased usage and optimization of lands that “were not being used”, like in the Americas,

which leads to a higher production of resources for everyone (Sect. 37, p. 23). For him,

even inequality was justifiable because it was based on consent. Once men consented to

the use of money (by using it), they also consented to the consequences of its usage:

unlimited accumulation and inequality (Sect. 45, p. 28). Overall, both Hobbes and Locke

recognized accumulation as a human desire, which is not something bad per se. While

Hobbes understood it as a given fact, Locke felt the need to justify it, seeing private

property as a moral good.

The State of Nature

To fully understand the differences between the authors regarding property and how

these differences relate to the State, we must look at the state of nature. Both Hobbes and

Locke understand the State as being artificially created by men (Introductory Notes on John

Locke, p. 3). It was necessary because of the problems present in a condition without any

political power, the state of nature. Despite being connected to Liberalism and discussing

the state of nature, their conclusions and understanding of this condition are very different.

Having witnessed the English Civil Wars (1642-1651), Hobbes’ view of a state without

strong political power was very pessimistic. Under the law of nature, every person is equal

in liberties and rights, including the right to do whatever they see best to preserve their life,

including killing others (Hobbes, 1994, Chapter XIV, p. 79). This state of nature is a

condition of maximum insecurity, perpetual fear, and distrust of others, as you are

constantly under threat (p. 80). You can try to say something is yours and have property,
 5

but property rights are non-existent because everyone has the right to everything, so there

is nothing to protect property (Chapter XIII, p. 78). Although this state was very chaotic,

Hobbes does not consider it as evil, it is simply human nature. We cannot say it is immoral

because morality is a concept created by society, which should not be applied to a condition

where there is no society (Chapter, XIV, p. 79).

Locke disagrees with Hobbes because he sees no reason to believe that the State of

Nature would be purely a state of war. In fact, Locke believes it would be somewhat

peaceful because individuals would not be completely free to do anything they want. In

contrast with Hobbes, he understands that there is a binding norm that individuals must

follow, the law of nature (Locke, 1980, Chapter II, Sect. 4, p. 8). This law can be

understood by using reason, individuals should be able to understand the limits to their

freedoms (Chapter VI, Sect. 59, p. 33). In addition to the existence of this law, it is

relatively effective because it is enforced by the individuals themselves. The “right of

nature” is the right that each individual has to make sure the law of nature is being followed.

People have the right to protect their property and life; being able to judge, punish, and

take reparation for any disturbance in the law (Chapter VII, Sect. 87, p. 46). Thus, the main

difference between Hobbes and Locke is that, while for Hobbes the State of War is

permanent, for Locke it is simply a temporary disruption in the state of nature.

It is important to understand this major difference in their State of Nature, because

it is going to shape their view on property and its relation to the function of the State.

Hobbes considers that people are moved by their desires and passions, and we naturally

desire to live in peace based on two motions: the fear of a violent death, and the desire to
 6

live comfortably and be happy (Hobbes, Chapter XIII, p. 78). However, it is these same

motions that lead to us falling in a state of war, thus, it is necessary to break away from this

vicious cycle. Hobbes calculates, based on prudence, that people should keep their

promises, seek peace, and limit their natural right of freedom (Hobbes, Chapter XIV, p.

81). To give binding power to these calculations, you need a sovereign, a power that is able

to enforce these laws (p. 84-85). Therefore, Hobbes sees the State as necessary to keep

peace so that the individual can be happy, living long and comfortably.

While Locke would agree that the creation of a State would contribute to the

happiness of individuals, the means through how this would be achieved is very different

for him. Considering the State of Nature is already quite peaceful, the creation of a political

State does not happen because there is a necessity to ensure peace like it is for Hobbes. In

this more peaceful State where there is the binding law of nature, and everyone has the

right to enforce it, property rights do exist. You have the right to keep your property and,

should someone try to take it away from you, you can punish them and get reparation for

it. However, since everyone can be a “judge”, it is bound that biased judgments and

conflicts would happen, which are inconveniences to keeping property (Locke, 1980,

Chapter VII, Sect. 91, p. 49). For this reason, an unbiased power that will execute and

enforce the Natural Law is created, which Locke refers to as the “Magistrate” (Sect. 89, p.

48). For Locke, this neutral State’s purpose is primarily to protect the Commonwealth and

preserve property. (Sect. 88, p. 47).

The State
 7

Regarding the State, its purpose is not the only thing both authors disagree with,

they also have different perspectives on the powers the State should have. Hobbes identifies

that the main problem that resulted in the English War was a split power between the

monarch and the Parliament. For that reason, he believes that the only way that a State can

maintain peace is if the sovereign has absolute power over everyone and everything,

including the Laws (Hobbes, 1994, Chapter XVIII). The absolute sovereign is the owner

of all things in the State including property, and the citizens are simply allowed to enjoy

these properties, because before the sovereign there was no property right (p. 114). In

theory, the sovereign could take away or meddle with this “lent property” and it would be

“just”; but Hobbes says the sovereign should not interfere much because it would not be

good for the citizens (p. 117-118). He also recognizes that taxation is necessary to keep the

State running, so the sovereign can take the necessary funds (p. 118).

For Locke, the State is limited and divided and it is held accountable to the laws

instead of being above them (Locke, 1980, Chapter XI). Since the State was created to

protect the property of citizens, it cannot meddle in any way with people’s private property,

much less take it away (Sect. 138, p. 73). Even taxation would be seen as a way of meddling

with people’s property and should not happen without consent (Sect. 140, p. 74). In this

sense, Locke was more Liberalist than Hobbes, focusing on protecting individuals from the

interference of the State. Thus, while both agree that an authority is necessary to effectively

maintain property, Hobbes believes in an absolute figure that has complete power over its

citizens. Locke strongly opposes this view, as he believes that the State should serve its

citizens and protect their property from others and from the State itself.
 8

Conclusion

There are many similarities between Hobbes and Locke: both see men as equally

free in the state of nature, consider the State an artificial creation, among other things.

However, their theories have major contrasting points, especially in matters related to

private property. Both recognize property accumulation as a human desire, but for Hobbes

this is only a fact, while Locke justifies it as something good for everyone. Another major

difference is the existence and maintenance of property in the state of nature. Hobbes would

say there is no private property right, as everyone has the right to everything. It would also

be difficult to keep property because this condition is very chaotic. Locke disagrees,

affirming that there are limitations to the rights and liberties of individuals even in the State

of Nature. For this reason, property rights exist and are enforced by the law of nature,

guaranteeing a more peaceful state of nature compared to Hobbes’.

Even though both authors agree the State is necessary to properly preserve property,

they have different conclusions on its purpose and powers. For Hobbes, the State is needed

because without strong political power, there is no security. Locke, however, believes that

it could be relatively peaceful, but there would be inconveniences, and a Magistrate power

to neutrally enforce the Law of Nature is necessary. As for the powers of the State, Hobbes

identifies that a sovereign must be absolute to maintain safety and stability. This sovereign

would have power over everyone and the laws; meaning it could revoke the property rights

it gave to citizens and interfere with their private property. In contrast, Locke, finds it

unacceptable that a State could interfere with people's private property. Instead, it should

be held accountable to the laws and simply help protect the citizens’ property.
 9

References

Hobbes, T. (1994). Leviathan: With selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. E.

Curley (Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.

Locke, J. (1980). Second Treatise of Government. C. B. Macpherson (Ed.). Indianapolis:

Hackett Pub. Co.

Mawhinney, M. (2017). Introductory Notes on John Locke.