Lecture 4: This Land Is My Land

What this lecture covers

The course turns to John Locke, who argues that individuals hold natural rights to life, liberty, and property even before any government exists. This lecture explains Locke's state of nature, his account of how private property can arise without anyone's consent, and his theory that legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed.

After watching, you can explain why Locke calls certain rights unalienable, describe his labor-mixing theory of property, and identify where Locke's view aligns with libertarianism and where it diverges from it.

Key ideas

• State of nature: Locke's hypothetical condition of free and equal individuals before government or law exists, governed only by a law of nature.
• Law of nature: even in the state of nature, individuals may not harm another's life, liberty, or property, and may not give up their own.
• Unalienable rights: rights to life, liberty, and property that are so fully ours that even we cannot trade or give them away, unlike an ordinary possession.
• Labor-mixing theory of property: Locke argues that mixing one's labor with unowned things, such as land or gathered fruit, makes them one's property, provided enough and as good is left for others.
• Natural versus conventional property: property rights exist before government, but government still defines and enforces what counts as property.
• Consent and political obligation: Locke holds that legitimate government requires the consent of the governed, distinguishing him from a divine-right or purely coercive theory of the state.
• The Native American land debate: a class discussion about whether Locke's property theory doubles as a justification for colonial land seizure.

Walkthrough

Rights in the state of nature (0:04)

Sandel introduces Locke as a potential ally of libertarianism: he believes in fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property that no government, however democratic, can override. These rights exist prior to government, in what Locke calls the state of nature, a condition of freedom and equality nonetheless bound by a law of nature that forbids taking your own or anyone else's life, liberty, or property.

Unalienable rights (6:10)

Sandel explains the paradox of unalienable rights: a right to something you cannot sell or transfer, unlike a normal possession. He connects this to Thomas Jefferson's use of Locke's language in the Declaration of Independence, and notes that this feature actually separates Locke from strict libertarianism, since a full self-owner should be able to dispose of their rights however they wish.

Property through labor (8:17)

Locke's central argument: each person owns their own labor, and mixing that labor with unowned resources, such as land one clears and cultivates, makes those resources one's property, as long as there is enough and as good left for others. Sandel connects this ancient argument to a modern parallel, the dispute between rich and poor countries over drug patents during the AIDS crisis in South Africa.

Does Locke's theory justify colonization? (15:26)

Students debate whether Locke's labor-mixing argument, which privileges enclosed and cultivated land, effectively justifies European settlers taking land from Native Americans who did not enclose it in the same way. Some argue the theory is a rationalization for dispossession; others point out that Locke's own text limits acquisition to cases with enough left for others, and that hunter-gatherer use of land might itself count as a form of property under Locke's logic.

From natural property to government by consent (25:39)

Sandel shifts to Locke's second major idea: legitimate government arises from consent, because the state of nature has real inconveniences, chiefly that everyone must enforce the law of nature for themselves, leading to excess and instability. Leaving the state of nature means agreeing to accept the decisions of the majority, but that majority still cannot violate the unalienable rights that never disappear.

Implied consent and its limits (41:06)

The lecture closes on the puzzle of consent for those born into an existing society who never explicitly signed on. Sandel and students discuss Locke's idea of implied consent through using government services, and a student, Nicola, pushes back on whether using public roads really implies agreement to the government's authority, including obligations like paying taxes or being conscripted.

Before you watch

• Watch Lecture 3 on libertarianism first, since this session repeatedly compares Locke's views to the libertarian position.
• Keep Nozick's idea of self-possession in mind, since Locke's labor theory of property is its historical source.

Check your understanding

1. Why does Locke call rights to life, liberty, and property "unalienable," and how does that differ from ordinary ownership?
2. How does mixing one's labor with something unowned create a property right, according to Locke?
3. What objection did students raise about whether Locke's theory justifies the appropriation of Native American land?
4. What is the difference between "implied consent" and an explicit agreement to be governed, and why does it matter for political obligation?