Nozick asks: if I pour my can of tomato juice into the ocean, do I own the ocean? This challenge most directly targets which element of Locke's theory?
AThe spoilage limitation — Nozick is showing that liquid goods cannot be stored without violating this constraint
BThe Lockean Proviso — pouring juice into the ocean leaves others without access to the ocean
CThe labor-mixing thesis — it fails to specify what 'mixing' labor means and why mingling effort with something makes it yours rather than simply losing your labor
DLocke's claim that money enables indefinite accumulation
Nozick's tomato juice objection is aimed squarely at the labor-mixing metaphor itself. If mixing labor means transferring ownership, pouring tomato juice into the ocean would imply owning the ocean — which is absurd. But if it means only losing your labor, the whole theory collapses. Nozick's point is that 'mixing labor' is not a precise criterion; it is a rhetorically powerful metaphor that does not bear the weight Locke places on it.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
According to Locke, why does labor-mixing transform unowned natural resources into private property?
ABecause the state validates and enforces labor-based claims through legal systems
BBecause social contracts give workers entitlement to the products of their effort
CBecause each person owns themselves and therefore owns their labor; applying labor to an unowned resource extends self-ownership into the external world
DBecause labor increases the value of resources, and value creators deserve compensation proportional to that increase
Locke's argument is grounded in self-ownership, not social contract or value creation. The chain is: you own yourself → you own your labor → when you mix your labor with something unowned, that thing absorbs what was already yours. Government does not create or validate these rights — it merely protects pre-existing natural rights. Option D approximates the Marxian labor theory of value, not Locke's property theory.
Question 3 True / False
Under Locke's theory, property rights require government recognition to be fully legitimate.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This inverts Locke's central argument. Property rights, on Locke's account, arise in the state of nature prior to any civil institution — through self-ownership and labor-mixing. Government is instituted to *protect* pre-existing natural rights, not to create them. Rights that required government recognition would be contingent on the state's will, which is precisely what Locke's natural rights framework is designed to avoid.
Question 4 True / False
Locke's Lockean Proviso means that the invention of money makes unlimited property accumulation illegitimate, because money dissolves the natural constraints on appropriation.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This is the reverse of Locke's actual argument. The Proviso (requiring 'enough and as good' for others) constrains original acquisition, not post-acquisition accumulation. The invention of money is what Locke uses to *permit* unlimited accumulation: since money doesn't rot, people can legitimately store value indefinitely by converting perishable goods into durable currency. Locke presents this as a form of tacit consent to unequal wealth. Money relaxes the spoilage limitation, not the Proviso.
Question 5 Short Answer
What work does the Lockean Proviso do in Locke's property theory, and why does its potential violation matter for evaluating the legitimacy of current property distributions?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The Proviso constrains the labor-mixing argument: original appropriation is legitimate only if it leaves 'enough and as good' for others. Without this constraint, the theory would permit early arrivals to appropriate everything and leave latecomers nothing. Its violation matters because Locke's theory is supposed to justify current property rights by tracing them back to legitimate original acquisitions. If those original acquisitions violated the Proviso — as critics like G.A. Cohen argue is true in modern economies where many lack adequate resources — then the entire chain of subsequent transfers built on those acquisitions is tainted, and the theory fails to vindicate current distributions.
This is the core of the left-libertarian and egalitarian critique of Lockean property theory: even granting the labor-mixing argument, the historical record of appropriation (land enclosure, colonization) almost certainly violated the Proviso. If so, Nozickian libertarianism loses its Lockean foundation.