Questions: Locke's Theory of Property and Limited Government

Question 1

A government imposes heavy taxation on citizens' property without their consent. According to Locke's framework, this action:

• A. Is legitimate, because sovereign power supersedes individual property claims
• B. Is permissible if the tax revenue is used to protect the property of other citizens
• C. Violates the social contract, because government was formed specifically to protect pre-existing property rights
• D. Is wrong only if the affected citizens never consented to join the political community

Answer: (C)

For Locke, government's legitimacy rests entirely on its function: protecting pre-existing natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Non-consensual taxation violates property rights — the very rights government was created to protect — and thereby breaches the social contract. Option A inverts Locke's argument: he rejects Hobbesian absolutism precisely because sovereign power is not unlimited but defined by its protective purpose. Option B misunderstands Locke: rights violations cannot be justified by beneficial ends. Option D gets closer but Locke's point is structural — any non-consensual seizure is illegitimate by design.

Question 2

Locke's labor theory of property holds that mixing your labor with an unowned natural resource makes it yours. The crucial philosophical move this makes is:

• A. Grounding property rights in government recognition, which validates the labor investment
• B. Showing that property rights are conventional — whatever society agrees to recognize
• C. Establishing that property rights exist prior to and independently of political institutions
• D. Demonstrating that unlimited accumulation is justified as long as one has worked for it

Answer: (C)

The labor theory's crucial contribution is making property rights pre-political: they arise from natural law and the act of labor, not from government recognition or social convention. This is precisely why government authority is derivative and limited — it was created to protect rights that already existed in the state of nature. Option A inverts this: Locke argues explicitly against government-granted property. Option B describes conventionalists like Hobbes, not Locke. Option D ignores the Lockean proviso, which limits appropriation when it leaves insufficient resources for others.

Question 3

For Locke, property rights are created by governments when they formalize ownership through laws and legal recognition.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

This directly reverses Locke's argument. Property rights arise in the state of nature from mixing labor with natural resources — they precede political institutions and exist independently of them. Government is formed by social contract precisely to better protect these pre-existing rights, not to create them. If property rights depended on government recognition, then governments could define, modify, or revoke them at will — exactly the Hobbesian absolutism Locke opposed. The pre-political foundation is what gives property rights their force as limits on government power.

Question 4

Locke's theory implies that a government which systematically violates property rights through arbitrary seizure may be legitimately resisted and overthrown.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

This follows directly from Locke's framework. If government's legitimacy derives from its function — protecting pre-existing natural rights — then a government that violates those rights has forfeited its justification for authority. Locke explicitly draws this radical conclusion: such a government has breached the social contract, and the people retain the right to resist and replace it. This argument provided the philosophical vocabulary for the American Revolution; Jefferson's Declaration of Independence draws directly on this Lockean reasoning.

Question 5

How does Locke's labor theory of property lead to a *limited* rather than expansive conception of government authority?

Model answer: Because property rights are pre-political — arising from labor in the state of nature, prior to any government — they exist as constraints on government rather than grants from it. Government is formed by social contract for a specific purpose: to better protect these already-existing rights. The scope of legitimate government authority is therefore defined and bounded by that purpose. A government that goes beyond protecting rights (by seizing property arbitrarily or taxing without consent) exceeds its mandate and becomes illegitimate. Authority is derivative of its function; when it acts against that function, it loses its claim to obedience.

The contrast with Hobbes is instructive: Hobbes grounds sovereignty in the need to escape a war of all against all, which justifies near-unlimited power. Locke grounds government in protecting natural rights, which inherently limits power to rights-protection. The labor theory does the philosophical work of establishing that rights predate government — without pre-political rights, the limitation argument collapses.