Property

Locke argues that people come to have a right to private property in the state of nature.

All land is originally the common property of all mankind, but in the state of nature men and women are entitled to take some of the common property and make it their own
This defense of property in the state of nature is important for three reason.

We cannot begin thinking about politics with the state of nature if people cannot come to have a right to private property in the state of nature.

In the history of political thought, most philosophers had argued that the right to private property is established by governments for the good of the whole community.

If this were so, then there could be no private property in the state of nature.
As we see below, however, without a right to take some of the common property and make it their own, human beings could not survive.
So, if the state of nature is to be a plausible construct, the right to private property must be a pre-political right people come to have in the earliest state of nature.

Locke wants to defend the right to private property in the state of nature, so that he can argue that the purpose of government is to defend this pre-political right.
Locke wants to establish the possibility of great improvements in human productivity, which as we saw in Equality and Rights, is necessary to his claim that we have good prudential reasons to obey the law of nature.

People are justified in taking part of the common property and making it their own in the state of nature for three reason.

We cannot live without eating. But, to eat, we must appropriate common property and make it our own. Thus the right to private property follow from our right to life.
In taking common property and making it our own, we do not take from other people.

Property left unused is wasted for it contributes nothing to human well-being.
Land left in the commons is much less productive than land that has become the private property of some person.

The productivity of the land comes not from what the beneficence of God , but from what we are able to make of the land.
Thus, when common land becomes someone’s private property, it is able to produce much more. This benefits everyone.

We have property in our own bodies and thus our labor.
We mix our labor with land, making that land our own. For it is only by doing this that we can live and that we can improve the productivity of the land.

Limits on the accumulation of property.

Locke holds that in the state of nature there are two limits on the accumulation of property.

"Enough and as good" has to be left for other when a person makes common his or her own.

The greater productivity of private land ensures that this will never be a serious limit.
To see his, imagine Locke’s response if someone comes of age at a time, like our own, when there is no common property. Is that person lacking "enough and as good" as that which people already own? Is thus private property in land unjust.

Locke would say no. For even an unskilled person working a number of hours today will have a far higher material standard of living than someone in the earliest state of nature who has to make his living by hunting, fishing and gathering nuts and berries.
It is the accumulated scientific and technical prowess of mankind that makes us so much more productive than our ancestors and thus that more than compensates for the lack of common land.

This limitation never comes into effect in the early state of nature, prior to the existence of trade or exchange.

No one would accumulate perishable goods such as apples, since why should someone work hard to accumulate goods that will spoil.
People are allowed to accumulate durable goods, such as nuts or wood. But few people would go far in doing this.

In the absence of trade or exchange, there is nothing to be done with an accumulated stock of nuts. .
Nor would a person have the time and energy to accumulate durable goods, since so much of his time would be devoted to acquiring perishable goods, and, especially, food and clothing.

The point of the spoilage limitation, then, is to show us the importance of trade and exchange.

Once trade and exchange begins, and money is invented. the circumstances of the state of nature dramatically change.

Trade begins with barter, of one presumably durable good for perishable goods.

This gives people an incentive to work harder or smarter, in order to accumulate perishable goods that can be traded for durable goods.

Money is invented when people come to accept gold and silver or other such goods as a general medium of exchange.

Gold and silver are useful for this purpose since being relatively rare, a small amount of gold or silver would trade for a large amount of other goods.
Locke claims that people consent to money.

This consent however is individual, not communal. People do not all need to meet together to accept money. Instead, the acceptance of money gradually comes about as more and more people are willing to accept it in return for their goods.
Historically, Locke’s account is accurate. Money—including paper money—was invented by bankers not by governments.

The invention of money

makes a greater degree of inequality possible.

By giving the industrious and talented an incentive to work hard and smart and accumulate goods.

also makes for a greater degree of growth in what we today call productivity.

It gives the ambitious, industrious and talented an incentive to work hard and smart.

Once the common land is gone, unskilled and / or lazy workers must hold exchange their labor for money. This is likely to make them work harder then they might in the state of nature.