Chapter V
                             Of Property

  24. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us that men,
being once born, have a right to their preservation, and
consequently to meat and drink and such other things as Nature affords
for their subsistence, or "revelation," which gives us an account of
those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah and his
sons, it is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115. 16),
"has given the earth to the children of men," given it to mankind in
common. But, this being supposed, it seems to some a very great
difficulty how any one should ever come to have a property in
anything, I will not content myself to answer, that, if it be
difficult to make out "property" upon a supposition that God gave
the world to Adam and his posterity in common, it is impossible that
any man but one universal monarch should have any "property" upon a
supposition that God gave the world to Adam and his heirs in
succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity; but I shall
endeavour to show how men might come to have a property in several
parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without
any express compact of all the commoners.
  25. God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also
given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life
and convenience. The earth and all that is therein is given to men for
the support and comfort of their being. And though all the fruits it
naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in
common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature, and
nobody has originally a private dominion exclusive of the rest of
mankind in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state, yet
being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means
to appropriate them some way or other before they can be of any use,
or at all beneficial, to any particular men. The fruit or venison
which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is
still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his- i.e., a part of
him, that another can no longer have any right to it before it can
do him any good for the support of his life.
  26. Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all
men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody
has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the
"work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then,
he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it
in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something
that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him
removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this
labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other
men. For this "labour" being the unquestionable property of the
labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined
to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for
others.
  27. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or
the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly
appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is
his. I ask, then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested?
or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or
when he picked them up? And it is plain, if the first gathering made
them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction
between them and common. That added something to them more than
Nature, the common mother of all, had done, and so they became his
private right. And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or
apples he thus appropriated because he had not the consent of all
mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself
what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was
necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given
him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the
taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state
Nature leaves it in, which begins the property, without which the
common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part does not
depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus, the grass my
horse has bit, the turfs my servant has cut, and the ore I have digged
in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others,
become my property without the assignation or consent of anybody.
The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state
they were in, hath fixed my property in them.
  28. By making an explicit consent of every commoner necessary to any
one's appropriating to himself any part of what is given in common.
Children or servants could not cut the meat which their father or
master had provided for them in common without assigning to every
one his peculiar part. Though the water running in the fountain be
every one's, yet who can doubt but that in the pitcher is his only who
drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of Nature where
it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath
thereby appropriated it to himself.
  29. Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian's who hath
killed it; it is allowed to be his goods who hath bestowed his
labour upon it, though, before, it was the common right of every
one. And amongst those who are counted the civilised part of
mankind, who have made and multiplied positive laws to determine
property, this original law of Nature for the beginning of property,
in what was before common, still takes place, and by virtue thereof,
what fish any one catches in the ocean, that great and still remaining
common of mankind; or what amber-gris any one takes up here is by
the labour that removes it out of that common state Nature left it in,
made his property who takes that pains about it. And even amongst
us, the hare that any one is hunting is thought his who pursues her
during the chase. For being a beast that is still looked upon as
common, and no man's private possession, whoever has employed so
much labour about any of that kind as to find and pursue her has
thereby removed her from the state of Nature wherein she was common,
and hath begun a property.
  30. It will, perhaps, be objected to this, that if gathering the
acorns or other fruits of the earth, etc., makes a right to them, then
any one may engross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The
same law of Nature that does by this means give us property, does also
bound that property too. "God has given us all things richly." Is
the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration? But how far has He given
it us- "to enjoy"? As much as any one can make use of to any advantage
of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a
property in. Whatever is beyond this is more than his share, and
belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or
destroy. And thus considering the plenty of natural provisions there
was a long time in the world, and the few spenders, and to how small a
part of that provision the industry of one man could extend itself and
engross it to the prejudice of others, especially keeping within the
bounds set by reason of what might serve for his use, there could be
then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so
established.
  31. But the chief matter of property being now not the fruits of the
earth and the beasts that subsist on it, but the earth itself, as that
which takes in and carries with it all the rest, I think it is plain
that property in that too is acquired as the former. As much land as a
man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of,
so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, enclose it
from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right to say everybody
else has an equal title to it, and therefore he cannot appropriate, he
cannot enclose, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners, all
mankind. God, when He gave the world in common to all mankind,
commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required
it of him. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth- i.e.,
improve it for the benefit of life and therein lay out something
upon it that was his own, his labour. He that, in obedience to this
command of God, subdued, tilled, and sowed any part of it, thereby
annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no
title to, nor could without injury take from him.
  32. Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving
it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and
as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that,
in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his
enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can
make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think
himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a
good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to
quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is
enough of both, is perfectly the same.
  33. God gave the world to men in common, but since He gave it them
for their benefit and the greatest conveniencies of life they were
capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed He meant it should
always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the
industrious and rational (and labour was to be his title to it); not
to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. He
that had as good left for his improvement as was already taken up
needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already
improved by another's labour; if he did it is plain he desired the
benefit of another's pains, which he had no right to, and not the
ground which God had given him, in common with others, to labour on,
and whereof there was as good left as that already possessed, and more
than he knew what to do with, or his industry could reach to.
  34. It is true, in land that is common in England or any other
country, where there are plenty of people under government who have
money and commerce, no one can enclose or appropriate any part without
the consent of all his fellow-commoners; because this is left common
by compact- i.e., by the law of the land, which is not to be violated.
And, though it be common in respect of some men, it is not so to all
mankind, but is the joint propriety of this country, or this parish.
Besides, the remainder, after such enclosure, would not be as good
to the rest of the commoners as the whole was, when they could all
make use of the whole; whereas in the beginning and first peopling
of the great common of the world it was quite otherwise. The law man
was under was rather for appropriating. God commanded, and his wants
forced him to labour. That was his property, which could not be
taken from him wherever he had fixed it. And hence subduing or
cultivating the earth and having dominion, we see, are joined
together. The one gave title to the other. So that God, by
commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to appropriate. And the
condition of human life, which requires labour and materials to work
on, necessarily introduce private possessions.
  35. The measure of property Nature well set, by the extent of
men's labour and the conveniency of life. No man's labour could subdue
or appropriate all, nor could his enjoyment consume more than a
small part; so that it was impossible for any man, this way, to
entrench upon the right of another or acquire to himself a property to
the prejudice of his neighbour, who would still have room for as
good and as large a possession (after the other had taken out his)
as before it was appropriated. Which measure did confine every man's
possession to a very moderate proportion, and such as he might
appropriate to himself without injury to anybody in the first ages
of the world, when men were more in danger to be lost, by wandering
from their company, in the then vast wilderness of the earth than to
be straitened for want of room to plant in.
  36. The same measure may be allowed still, without prejudice to
anybody, full as the world seems. For, supposing a man or family, in
the state they were at first, peopling of the world by the children of
Adam or Noah, let him plant in some inland vacant places of America.
We shall find that the possessions he could make himself, upon the
measures we have given, would not be very large, nor, even to this
day, prejudice the rest of mankind or give them reason to complain
or think themselves injured by this man's encroachment, though the
race of men have now spread themselves to all the corners of the
world, and do infinitely exceed the small number was at the beginning.
Nay, the extent of ground is of so little value without labour that
I have heard it affirmed that in Spain itself a man may be permitted
to plough, sow, and reap, without being disturbed, upon land he has no
other title to, but only his making use of it. But, on the contrary,
the inhabitants think themselves beholden to him who, by his
industry on neglected, and consequently waste land, has increased
the stock of corn, which they wanted. But be this as it will, which
I lay no stress on, this I dare boldly affirm, that the same rule of
propriety- viz., that every man should have as much as he could make
use of, would hold still in the world, without straitening anybody,
since there is land enough in the world to suffice double the
inhabitants, had not the invention of money, and the tacit agreement
of men to put a value on it, introduced (by consent) larger
possessions and a right to them; which, how it has done, I shall by
and by show more at large.
  37. This is certain, that in the beginning, before the desire of
having more than men needed had altered the intrinsic value of things,
which depends only on their usefulness to the life of man, or had
agreed that a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without
wasting or decay, should be worth a great piece of flesh or a whole
heap of corn, though men had a right to appropriate by their labour,
each one to himself, as much of the things of Nature as he could
use, yet this could not be much, nor to the prejudice of others, where
the same plenty was still left, to those who would use the same
industry.
  Before the appropriation of land, he who gathered as much of the
wild fruit, killed, caught, or tamed as many of the beasts as he
could- he that so employed his pains about any of the spontaneous
products of Nature as any way to alter them from the state Nature
put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire
a propriety in them; but if they perished in his possession without
their due use- if the fruits rotted or the venison putrefied before he
could spend it, he offended against the common law of Nature, and
was liable to be punished: he invaded his neighbour's share, for he
had no right farther than his use called for any of them, and they
might serve to afford him conveniencies of life.
  38. The same measures governed the possession of land, too.
Whatsoever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made use of before it
spoiled, that was his peculiar right; whatsoever he enclosed, and
could feed and make use of, the cattle and product was also his. But
if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on the ground, or the
fruit of his planting perished without gathering and laying up, this
part of the earth, notwithstanding his enclosure, was still to be
looked on as waste, and might be the possession of any other. Thus, at
the beginning, Cain might take as much ground as he could till and
make it his own land, and yet leave enough to Abel's sheep to feed on:
a few acres would serve for both their possessions. But as families
increased and industry enlarged their stocks, their possessions
enlarged with the need of them; but yet it was commonly without any
fixed property in the ground they made use of till they
incorporated, settled themselves together, and built cities, and then,
by consent, they came in time to set out the bounds of their
distinct territories and agree on limits between them and their
neighbours, and by laws within themselves settled the properties of
those of the same society. For we see that in that part of the world
which was first inhabited, and therefore like to be best peopled, even
as low down as Abraham's time, they wandered with their flocks and
their herds, which was their substance, freely up and down- and this
Abraham did in a country where he was a stranger; whence it is plain
that, at least, a great part of the land lay in common, that the
inhabitants valued it not, nor claimed property in any more than
they made use of; but when there was not room enough in the same place
for their herds to feed together, they, by consent, as Abraham and Lot
did (Gen. xiii. 5), separated and enlarged their pasture where it best
liked them. And for the same reason, Esau went from his father and his
brother, and planted in Mount Seir (Gen. 36. 6).
  39. And thus, without supposing any private dominion and property in
Adam over all the world, exclusive of all other men, which can no
way be proved, nor any one's property be made out from it, but
supposing the world, given as it was to the children of men in common,
we see how labour could make men distinct titles to several parcels of
it for their private uses, wherein there could be no doubt of right,
no room for quarrel.
  40. Nor is it so strange as, perhaps, before consideration, it may
appear, that the property of labour should be able to overbalance
the community of land, for it is labour indeed that puts the
difference of value on everything; and let any one consider what the
difference is between an acre of land planted with tobacco or sugar,
sown with wheat or barley, and an acre of the same land lying in
common without any husbandry upon it, and he will find that the
improvement of labour makes the far greater part of the value. I think
it will be but a very modest computation to say, that of the
products of the earth useful to the life of man, nine-tenths are the
effects of labour. Nay, if we will rightly estimate things as they
come to our use, and cast up the several expenses about them- what
in them is purely owing to Nature and what to labour- we shall find
that in most of them ninety-nine hundredths are wholly to be put on
the account of labour.
  41. There cannot be a clearer demonstration of anything than several
nations of the Americans are of this, who are rich in land and poor in
all the comforts of life; whom Nature, having furnished as liberally
as any other people with the materials of plenty- i.e., a fruitful
soil, apt to produce in abundance what might serve for food,
raiment, and delight; yet, for want of improving it by labour, have
not one hundredth part of the conveniencies we enjoy, and a king of
a large and fruitful territory there feeds, lodges, and is clad
worse than a day labourer in England.
  42. To make this a little clearer, let us but trace some of the
ordinary provisions of life, through their several progresses,
before they come to our use, and see how much they receive of their
value from human industry. Bread, wine, and cloth are things of
daily use and great plenty; yet notwithstanding acorns, water, and
leaves, or skins must be our bread, drink and clothing, did not labour
furnish us with these more useful commodities. For whatever bread is
more worth than acorns, wine than water, and cloth or silk than
leaves, skins or moss, that is wholly owing to labour and industry.
The one of these being the food and raiment which unassisted Nature
furnishes us with; the other provisions which our industry and pains
prepare for us, which how much they exceed the other in value, when
any one hath computed, he will then see how much labour makes the
far greatest part of the value of things we enjoy in this world; and
the ground which produces the materials is scarce to be reckoned in as
any, or at most, but a very small part of it; so little, that even
amongst us, land that is left wholly to nature, that hath no
improvement of pasturage, tillage, or planting, is called, as indeed
it is, waste; and we shall find the benefit of it amount to little
more than nothing.
  43. An acre of land that bears here twenty bushels of wheat, and
another in America, which, with the same husbandry, would do the like,
are, without doubt, of the same natural, intrinsic value. But yet
the benefit mankind receives from one in a year is worth five
pounds, and the other possibly not worth a penny; if all the profit an
Indian received from it were to be valued and sold here, at least I
may truly say, not one thousandth. It is labour, then, which puts
the greatest part of value upon land, without which it would
scarcely be worth anything; it is to that we owe the greatest part
of all its useful products; for all that the straw, bran, bread, of
that acre of wheat, is more worth than the product of an acre of as
good land which lies waste is all the effect of labour. For it is
not barely the ploughman's pains, the reaper's and thresher's toil,
and the baker's sweat, is to be counted into the bread we eat; the
labour of those who broke the oxen, who digged and wrought the iron
and stones, who felled and framed the timber employed about the
plough, mill, oven, or any other utensils, which are a vast number,
requisite to this corn, from its sowing to its being made bread,
must all be charged on the account of labour, and received as an
effect of that; Nature and the earth furnished only the almost
worthless materials as in themselves. It would be a strange
catalogue of things that industry provided and made use of about every
loaf of bread before it came to our use if we could trace them;
iron, wood, leather, bark, timber, stone, bricks, coals, lime,
cloth, dyeing-drugs, pitch, tar, masts, ropes, and all the materials
made use of in the ship that brought any of the commodities made use
of by any of the workmen, to any part of the work, all which it
would be almost impossible, at least too long, to reckon up.
  44. From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature
are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor
of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) had still in
himself the great foundation of property; and that which made up the
great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his
being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of
life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others.
  45. Thus labour, in the beginning, gave a right of property,
wherever any one was pleased to employ it, upon what was common, which
remained a long while, the far greater part, and is yet more than
mankind makes use of Men at first, for the most part, contented
themselves with what unassisted Nature offered to their necessities;
and though afterwards, in some parts of the world, where the
increase of people and stock, with the use of money, had made land
scarce, and so of some value, the several communities settled the
bounds of their distinct territories, and, by laws, within themselves,
regulated the properties of the private men of their society, and
so, by compact and agreement, settled the property which labour and
industry began. And the leagues that have been made between several
states and kingdoms, either expressly or tacitly disowning all claim
and right to the land in the other's possession, have, by common
consent, given up their pretences to their natural common right, which
originally they had to those countries; and so have, by positive
agreement, settled a property amongst themselves, in distinct parts of
the world; yet there are still great tracts of ground to be found,
which the inhabitants thereof, not having joined with the rest of
mankind in the consent of the use of their common money, lie waste,
and are more than the people who dwell on it, do, or can make use
of, and so still lie in common; though this can scarce happen
amongst that part of mankind that have consented to the use of money.
  46. The greatest part of things really useful to the life of man,
and such as the necessity of subsisting made the first commoners of
the world look after- as it doth the Americans now- are generally
things of short duration, such as- if they are not consumed by use-
will decay and perish of themselves. Gold, silver, and diamonds are
things that fancy or agreement hath put the value on, more than real
use and the necessary support of life. Now of those good things
which Nature hath provided in common, every one hath a right (as
hath been said) to as much as he could use; and had a property in
all he could effect with his labour; all that his industry could
extend to, to alter from the state Nature had put it in, was his. He
that gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples had thereby a
property in them; they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only
to look that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more
than his share, and robbed others. And, indeed, it was a foolish
thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use
of If he gave away a part to anybody else, so that it perished not
uselessly in his possession, these he also made use of And if he
also bartered away plums that would have rotted in a week, for nuts
that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he
wasted not the common stock; destroyed no part of the portion of goods
that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselessly in
his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal,
pleased with its colour, or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for
a sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him all his life,
he invaded not the right of others; he might heap up as much of
these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his
just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the
perishing of anything uselessly in it.
  47. And thus came in the use of money; some lasting thing that men
might keep without spoiling, and that, by mutual consent, men would
take in exchange for the truly useful but perishable supports of life.
  48. And as different degrees of industry were apt to give men
possessions in different proportions, so this invention of money
gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them. For
supposing an island, separate from all possible commerce with the rest
of the world, wherein there were but a hundred families, but there
were sheep, horses, and cows, with other useful animals, wholesome
fruits, and land enough for corn for a hundred thousand times as many,
but nothing in the island, either because of its commonness or
perishableness, fit to supply the place of money. What reason could
any one have there to enlarge his possessions beyond the use of his
family, and a plentiful supply to its consumption, either in what
their own industry produced, or they could barter for like perishable,
useful commodities with others? Where there is not something both
lasting and scarce, and so valuable to be hoarded up, there men will
not be apt to enlarge their possessions of land, were it never so
rich, never so free for them to take. For I ask, what would a man
value ten thousand or an hundred thousand acres of excellent land,
ready cultivated and well stocked, too, with cattle, in the middle
of the inland parts of America, where he had no hopes of commerce with
other parts of the world, to draw money to him by the sale of the
product? It would not be worth the enclosing, and we should see him
give up again to the wild common of Nature whatever was more than
would supply the conveniences of life, to be had there for him and his
family.
  49. Thus, in the beginning, all the world was America, and more so
than that is now; for no such thing as money was anywhere known.
Find out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his
neighbours, you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge
his possessions.
  50. But, since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of
man, in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value
only from the consent of men- whereof labour yet makes in great part
the measure- it is plain that the consent of men have agreed to a
disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth- I mean out of
the bounds of society and compact; for in governments the laws
regulate it; they having, by consent, found out and agreed in a way
how a man may, rightfully and without injury, possess more than he
himself can make use of by receiving gold and silver, which may
continue long in a man's possession without decaying for the overplus,
and agreeing those metals should have a value.
  51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any
difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the
common things of Nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded
it; so that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title,
nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and
conveniency went together. For as a man had a right to all he could
employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more
than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about
the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others. What portion
a man carved to himself was easily seen; and it was useless, as well
as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.