Man the Maker versus Man the Taker: Locke's Theory of Property as a Theory of Just Settlement

File Size Format
48840_1.pdf 182Kb Adobe PDF View
Title Man the Maker versus Man the Taker: Locke's Theory of Property as a Theory of Just Settlement
Author Kane, John
Journal Name Eighteenth Century Thought
Year Published 2007
Place of publication New York
Publisher AMS Press
Abstract Locke rejected Spanish justifications of colonization based on a right of conquest and tried to show how English settlement could be both just and orderly. His theory of property in the Second Treatise, though it aimed at defending property at home against confiscation from above or below, was also geared toward English colonization. Though Locke's argument began by justifying the natural right to property of indigenous peoples, it was extensively employed to rationalize indigenous dispossession in North America and Australia. This paper explains how Locke accomplished this through a rhetorical tour de force that skillfully elided two distinct but seldom distinguished theories: one of simple appropriation - a theory of Man the Taker; and the other of valuea theory of Man the Maker. These are conceptually connected by their common element, the efficacy of labor in rights creation. In the state of nature an individual's use of labor to appropriate part of nature's bounty defined the simple rights of Man the Taker. But labor can also add value (utility) to natural materials that in-themselves are of little value, simultaneously creating property rights in the improved material. In the case of land, industrious labor adds value by 'improving' productivity and creating the superior title of Man the Maker, trumping the simple occupation and use of unimproved commons. This was the basis of a theory of complex commercial civilization that, applied in the colonial context where occupied lands were regarded as 'waste,' allowed the just displacement of indigenous peoples.
Peer Reviewed Yes
Published Yes
Publisher URI
Alternative URI
Copyright Statement Copyright 2007 AMS Press.This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.
Volume 3
Page from 235
Page to 253
ISSN 1545-0449
Date Accessioned 2008-02-21
Language en_AU
Research Centre Centre for Governance and Public Policy
Faculty Griffith Business School
Subject PRE2009-Political Theory and Political Philosophy
Publication Type Journal Articles (Refereed Article)
Publication Type Code c1

Show simple item record

Griffith University copyright notice