John Locke’s perspective on "liberty, freedom, and equality" can only be labeled as pretentious, hypocritical, and hugely selective.

The overall structure of this critique paper lies in his treatment of property and labor. In his words, "Thus labour, in the beginning, gave a right of property, wherever anyone was pleased to employ it upon what was common." (Second Treatise of Government, Locke). This notion exemplifies Locke’s belief in the sanctity of labor as the foundation of ownership. This analysis attempts to expose how Locke’s labor theory of property reinforces and justifies structures of patriarchy, economic inequality, the illusion of freedom, and racism. Locke's framework underpins a flawed democratic ideal, perpetuating the widening chasm between the wealthy and the poor in modern society.

This paper scrutinizes Locke’s argument that "Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."

Locke suggests in the Second Treatise of Government that mixing labor was necessary in order to acquire unowned resources. But Locke’s justification falls short. First, why does the act of blending labor with unowned resources grant ownership? Perhaps it may stem from his notion that “I” own my personal labor and with this, “I” can successfully own other things that lacked that ownership. But why does this act of mixing not risk forfeiting what one already possesses instead of acquiring what was unowned? It raises an intriguing question about the nature of creation and possession—does the act of labor not enhance and transform the unowned into something that reflects one’s identity, thus expanding one’s ownership rather than diminishing it? Or, from a different point of view, why should the fact that one spends some time working on some land provide a reason to respect your right to possess exclusive use of it? Because before an act of appropriation, someone can use that land freely too. Now that one has 'mixed' their labor and granted the right to exclusive possession, a person is now left 'less free' than they were before. What gives one the right to take away a piece of someone's freedom?

Locke gave a justification of this notion by providing his "Lockean proviso" stating that "enough, and as good, in common for others." This gives way to the idea that if an act of appropriation was not any prejudice to any other man, then this issue will then be satisfied. This proviso can only be seen as thickened idealism. How can one comply with the Lockean proviso if the resources we have are finite? Can we all really glorify the mixing of labor with a property in order to enjoy exclusive possession if the other part of the society is left with dwindling resources and opportunities? Locke's proviso assumes an infinite abundance of resources, yet this is not the case. As societies grow, the concentration of land and wealth into the hands of a few inevitably leads to a depletion of what remains for others. This not only contradicts the notion of equal liberty but also reinforces systemic inequality. The finite nature of resources means that every claim of ownership, justified by labor or not, inherently diminishes the freedom and access of others, leading to a society where the wealthy continue to accumulate at the expense of the marginalized.

But marginalization goes beyond economic value—it extends into social and gendered spheres as well. Women in the workforce often face a parallel struggle. Women's labor is often undervalued and overlooked, reflecting the gendered limitations Locke’s theory inadvertently upholds. Locke, while revolutionary in his rejection of absolute monarchy and his formulation of government as a social contract, still upheld patriarchal structures by excluding women from the rights and privileges that his theories extended to men. Just as resources are finite, so too are the opportunities for women to gain equality in the workforce, where their contributions are often ignored or devalued. This compounds the broader systemic inequalities Locke’s theories – abstracted from reality – fail to address.

Locke never explicitly stated that women should be undervalued. Indeed, Locke largely avoided discussing women altogether. However, in the Second Treatise of Government Locke argues that when wills collide within the family, the man is abler and stronger and his will must prevail. As highlighted in Early Liberal Roots of Feminism: John Locke and the Attack on Patriarchy, Locke's refusal to address women directly in the social contract is similar to his avoidance of the issue of women's labor. Locke argued that political and paternal power are distinct, but his underlying support of male dominance in the home calls into question his more general claims to equality. A small window of opportunity exists for feminist readings of Locke thanks to his acknowledgment of the mother's joint authority, as stated in the First Treatise of Government. But his conclusion which, as mentioned in the Second Treatise of Government, holds that in marital disputes, the stronger, masculine will must win reinforces gender hierarchies.

Locke’s application of his principles of liberty and equality seems to be inconsistent. Just as Locke’s labor theory results in the exclusion of others from resources, his views on the family uphold a system where women's labor and autonomy are limited, perpetuating a hierarchy in both property and political power. His political theory seems to promote equality in name while preserving hierarchy in practice – conforming to the famous line in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Animal Farm: “all people are equal but men are more equal than others.”

The inconsistencies abound with Locke’s views on slavery, a glaring contradiction to his advocacy for liberty, freedom, and equality. While Locke symbolizes the catalyst for the radical thinking of individual rights, his ties with the slave trade reveal a more complex and somehow troubling side of his philosophy. In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke argues that every person has a natural right to life, liberty, and property. However, he also makes an exception for "lawful captives taken in a just war," who can be subjected to slavery. In his words, "Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation, that 'tis hardly to be conceived that an Englishman, much less a gentleman, should plead for it."

Locke's grasp of the moral ramifications of slavery is evident in this statement, yet it stands in sharp contrast to his actions and theoretical defenses. Although he denounces slavery as intrinsically dehumanizing, he nonetheless defends it in certain situations, including during conquest or as retribution for wrongdoing. This dichotomy draws attention to a major contradiction in his philosophy: he defends individual liberties and rights while simultaneously endorsing structures that flagrantly transgress those same ideals. Locke's moral critique of tyranny is reflected in his rejection of slavery, but his practical involvement with the institution—such as his participation in colonial ventures—reveals the limits of his moral position. Locke unintentionally highlights the inconsistency of applying his own beliefs by framing slavery as an insult to English values of liberty. Can a philosophy that proclaims to uphold universal rights truly justify the existence of systemic oppression, or does it ultimately reveal the fragility of its own ideals?

Locke’s vision of “liberty, freedom, and equality” can be seen as a façade, an idealistic mask that conceals the hypocrisies and contradictions in his political philosophy. These inconsistencies become even more apparent when we examine modern society, where the same language of liberty and equality is often used to legitimize systems that produce inequality and exploitation. Locke’s assertion that labor grants ownership belies a troubling truth; mixing of one's labor often result in the exclusion of others from resources, creating systemic inequality. This paradox begs the question—can we genuinely claim to uphold equal rights when the very foundations of our property theories perpetuate gender, racial, and economic injustices? Will we spend our entire lives achieving these equal rights by the process of the things we greatly try to oppose? Locke's purported advocacy for freedom collapses under the weight of his own contradictions, particularly when viewed through the lens of slavery. While he denounces the institution, he simultaneously justifies it in specific contexts, reflecting a moral bankruptcy in his philosophical framework. Is it not profoundly ironic that a champion of individual rights could overlook the dehumanizing impact of his own theories? Locke’s ideals echo George Orwell's assertion that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." His legacy invites us to confront uncomfortable truths about our democratic ideals—are we truly committed to liberty for all, or are we merely reinforcing the privileges of the few? The challenge lies not in rejecting Locke, but in reckoning with the implications of his thought, compelling us to reexamine the very notion of freedom in a world still grappling with the legacies of inequality.

Joellyn Faye G. Ocampo is a third-year Political Science student at National University–Clark.

References:

Studies

Ackerly, Brooke A. 2005. "Early Liberal Roots of Feminism: John Locke and the Attack on Patriarchy." In Feminist Political Theory: A Reader, edited by Mary Lyndon Shanley and Carole Pateman, 47-61. New York: New York University Press.

Locke, John. 1960. First Treatise of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Locke, John. 1980. Second Treatise of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Orwell, George. 1945. Animal Farm. London: Secker & Warburg.

Articles

Baker, C. 2013. "John Locke and the Social Position of Women." Hope 25 (1): 39-56. https://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-abstract/25/1/39/11596/John-Locke-and-the-Social-Position-of-Women?redirectedFrom=PDF.

Kain, Patrick J. 2017. "Locke and Nozick on the Justification of Property." Libertarianism.org. https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/locke-nozick-justification-property.

McDonald, A. 2012. "Locke, Women, and Education." University of Wollongong Commonwealth Papers.

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=commwkpapers#:~:text=Locke appears then to have,educational programmes for both sexes.

Smith, A. 2018. "Does Locke's Entanglement with Slavery Undermine His Philosophy?" Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/does-lockes-entanglement-with-slavery-undermine-his-philosophy.

Smith, D. 2020. "The Ambiguities of Property in Locke's Thought." Annual Review of Ideology 23: 75-91. https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/ari/article/view/11618.