Locke and Plato: Political Society/Private Property

John Locke and Plato both tried to imagine and build the most functional society possible. Each believed that the government in the best society had a specific goal, for Locke it was to protect the property of its people, and for Plato it was to do whatever possible in order to preserve the public good. In order for this goal to be achieved, to Locke, the people had to have the maximum involvement in the way in which they were governed – a democracy. He thought it would be impossible for one man to be able to rule a society unselfishly, “I desire to know what kind of government that is…where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without the least liberty to any one question or control those who execute his pleasure” (Locke ch. 2, *13). Plato’s government leaned more towards a monarch, where there was one or few “philosopher kings” who had the utmost knowledge of what is right and wrong. The philosopher kings had the constant ability to maintain the public good. Another key difference between the two philosopher’s societies is how each dealt with private property.

While property was the main concern in Locke’s political society, meant very little in Plato’s Republic. Contrary to Plato, the entire point of forming a government, in Locke’s opinion, should be to ensure that every man maintains possession of the property that he labored for and that god gave him. Plato was trying to eliminate private property, while Locke tried to preserve it. Plato argues that if anyone, specifically people of power, has private possessions or desires, it is eventually detrimental to the whole of the society, “if they acquire private land, houses, and currency themselves, they’ll be household managers and farmers instead of guardians – hostile masters of the other citizens instead of their allies” (Plato 417a-b). The way Locke sets up his government around preserving man’s private property is the clearest example of the difference between his political society and that of Plato: Locke fervently supports the rights of an individual to own property, whereas Plato condemns anything that could deter a person from losing sight of the public good.

In contrast to Plato’s somewhat ridged society, Locke’s political government can seem too liberal, especially with respect to his views on private property and the idea that whatever you labor for is yours. Locke, however, makes a point to establish limits and restrictions to that notion. He is clear in stating that simply because a man worked for a section of land, does not mean it is his – he must cultivate it and make use of everything he owns, “if they perished, in his possession, without their due use; if the fruits rotted, or the venison putrified, 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” (Locke ch. 5, *37). Although Locke’s restriction to man owning private property seems logical, the nature of man is to desire more possessions whether he can make use of it or not.