Sect. 41. There cannot be a clearer demonstration of any thing, 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.
Sect. 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 cloathing, 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.
To return to the argument in hand. John Locke Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 5.
Locke's Second Treatise is generally taken as a contribution to normative political theory or an ideological tract defending capitalism, even a certain form of colonialism (recall two pieces inspired by Barbara Arneil here; here). But in passing ("by the by"), he makes a comment about the "art of government." Now, in one sense this is not surprising; Locke traveled in important political circles. But in another sense it is surprising because in Some Thoughts Concerning Education, he includes his own Treatises as belonging to another (prior) branch of politics on the origin, "rise, and extent of power." This sounds more descriptive than it is intended. He is clearly presupposing here an Aristotelian account/schema of explanation, and this description provides the reader with an account of the proper functioning of, and so limits on, the extent of power. But crucially, he has not taken himself to contribute to the art of government. By contrast, Some Thoughts continues with the idea that the art of government "is best learned by [personal] experience and history, especially that of a man's own country." He then adds some specific details for a curriculum that might educate an English Gentlemen. One may well see Hume's (later) History of England as supplying a superior entry into this material in the service of the art of government.
Now, in context, Locke's argument aims to show that enclosure and a monetized economy do not merely benefit those that enclose, but can benefit everybody raising everybody's standard of living. In addition, and this is a point I learned from Bas van der Vossen, Locke also argues that (to summarize) for any given person, after enclosure, monetizing, and improvement, natural resources are used more efficiently--so that smaller plots of land can feed the same mouth(s). So, Locke can be taken to be arguing that capitalism may also be good for the environment! Of course, in practice this stimulates population growth.
Importantly, in his discussion of the legitimacy of property, Locke generally assumes that consumption is a key end. This is especially clear in his analysis of the utility of money, which allows one to trade perishables and store value in another way. If the necessaries of life "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."* (Sect 46) In fact, he comes close to suggesting that accumulation for its own sake, without opportunity to consume, is simply pointless (see sect 48).
Now, the libertarian reading of Locke is correct that Locke thinks that Locke offers a kind of intrinsic defense of property rights. But there is clearly here also instrumental defense of property rights as conducive to consumption and rising standards of living. And he takes securing this instrumental feature as the occasion to mention the art of government. This requires skill. In particular (sorry the pun), it requires the development of a growing, skilled labor force. So, from the point of view of policy, we can take Locke to be committed to two kinds of policies that promote population growth: (i) open borders that facilitate immigration, abundance in food, fertility/family friendly policies. (ii) And we can take him to be committed to policies that improve the skill-set of the workforce that is the stimulation of public or private provision of education.
Now, (i) a commitment to population growth is pretty much the consensus in European statecraft shared by mercantilist and liberal thinkers alike. The previous sentence hides complexities related to provision of charity to the needy, but leave that aside. (ii) The idea that an educated workforce is good for the economy becomes one of the great debates of the eighteenth century (because critics content that the poor are lazy, and so education is wasted on them; other critics contend that an educated workforce will demand higher wages and that's bad for the economy; others worry that an educated workforce may acquire a taste for revolutionary ideas, etc.). A certain kind of contemporary rights based Lockean may worry that the art of government may now be tempted to tax the rich to pay for the education of the poor and, thereby, infringe on the property rights of the rich.
Be that as it may, one may think that even if one were to grant that the point of the art of government is to provide the conditions under which citizens can consume more, Locke now is ignoring the more fundamental desideratum of the art of government: the continued existence, survival of the state. And here Locke is ingenious -- echoing Mencius, and even Machiavelli (The Prince, ch. 17)), and anticipating Hume ("Of Commerce") -- by suggesting that a state which protects property rights and promotes economic growth of the sort that allows even the poor to raise their standard of living, will be the kind of state that will be a magnet for immigrants and become so powerful that it need not fear its potential enemies ("will quickly be too hard for his neighbours.")
I could conclude here. But Locke reminds the reader that impartial rule of law (and a skilled, growing labor force) is not sufficient to get the good outcome.
There is, however, one more issue raised by Locke in the art of government (" against the oppression of power and narrowness of party,"). He could be taken to be saying two (distinct, perhaps mutually supporting) things: [A] that in order to have/secure impartial rule of law, it is a duty of the sovereign to battle rent-seeking, political partisans and the rich and powerful who try to bend the law to their own advantage. Or [B] that the rule of law can be used by the sovereign to battle "against the oppression of power and narrowness of party." On [A] this requires a public spirited sovereign. On [B] this also requires a public spirited sovereign, but it also open the door to an overbearing sovereign. In either case, for Locke it is clear that the threat against the rule of law does not come from the poor or indigent, but from the rich and powerful.
What this passage shows, is that from the start liberal political philosophy was aware that the implementation and securing of liberal principles required political skill, that is, leadership because the political process can undermine liberal ends. Somewhat frustratingly, Locke is silent on what goes into the art of leadership.
*Let's grant Locke that money (gold/silver) keeps its value.
Comments