Conceived in Liberty Volume 2 - Ludwig von Mises Institute

keep this property, exchange it for the property of others, or bequeath it to
his heirs.* He has the "natural right" to the property and to defend it
against invasion by others. The moral justification for government, to Locke,
was to defend these rights of property. Should government fail to serve this
function, and itself become destructive of property rights, the people then have
the right to revolt against such government and to replace it with one that
will defend their rights.** Thus, Locke, by the use of reason in investigating
the laws of man's nature, adumbrated the doctrine of the natural rights
of the individual to person and property, rights that are anterior to government
and that government is duty-bound to defend, on pain of a justified
overthrow.
Locke is clear that aggression and invasion of another's right can establish
no just title to property or rule, and that this holds for great heads of states
as well as for petty criminals: "The injury and the crime is equal, whether
committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villain. The title of the
offender and the number of his followers make no difference unless it be to
aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones to keep
them in their obedience, but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and
triumphs, because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this
world, and have the power in their own possession which should punish
offenders." As to the legislature,
The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property;
and the end why they choose and authorize a legislature is that there may be
laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the
members of the society . . . whenever the legislators endeavor to take away
and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under
arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who
are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the
common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and
violence.
Locke's reply to the critics of his theory of revolution was trenchant:
Those who oppose the right to revolution as turbulent and destructive "may
as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers
or pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief
come in such cases, it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own
right, but on him who invades his neighbor's."
*`Macpherson has shown that Locke's state of nature includes a free market for
exchange of property, including monetary exchanges, all of which is logically anterior
to government (C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism
[Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962], pp. 208 ff.).
** It is a misconception to accuse Locke of setting "property rights" above "human
rights." For the two were conjoined: property rights included the right of the individual's
property in his own person.
191