Money: The Root of Unnatural Accumulation

Rebecca SE Tan

Originally written on 19 November 2020, on how the invention of money has overcame Locke's limits on natural rights to accumulation.

Posted on 19 December 2022.

Locke’s limits on natural rights to accumulation are bound by the law of nature[1] (20). Men cannot accumulate so much that it would disadvantage or infringe the rights of others (Locke 21), and were permitted to accumulate only as much as they can use before it spoils (Locke 20; 24; 28), because “nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy” (Locke 21). If one accumulates more than this, such as enclosing a large area which leads to spoilage, he “offended against the common law of nature”, “was liable to be punished” and his enclosed land can be taken by others (Locke 24). Hence, the right to accumulation is bounded by what one can use (Locke 30).

Furthermore, there was no incentive to accumulate more than what one can use. Before the invention of money, the value of things “[depended] only on their usefulness to the life of man” (Locke 23). Things for sheer survival are “generally things of short duration”, which, if “not consumed by use, will decay and perish of themselves” (Locke 28). Hence, it was foolish and dishonest to hoard more than what one needed (Locke 28; 30). Additionally, the abundance of resources also decreases the need for excessive accumulation. Accumulation is naturally limited by “the extent of men’s labour and the conveniences of life” (Locke 22). The accumulation of men “does not lessen… the common stock of mankind” and would leave plenty “to those who would use the same industry” (Locke 23). Hence, with an abundance of resources, men had “no temptation to labour for more than he could [use]” (Locke 23; 30).

However, with the invention of money, men started to “desire of having more than [he] needed”, which “altered the intrinsic value of things” (Locke 23). Metals like gold and silver became accepted as money, though it had little use for man “in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage” (Locke 28-29). Instead, through the “tacit and voluntary” consent of men, money was identified as scarce and valuable to be hoarded up, giving men reason to “enlarge his possessions beyond [his] use” in “hopes of commerce” (Locke 23; 28-29).

Furthermore, men did not go against the law of nature in accumulating metal. Money does not spoil – it can be kept “without wasting or decay” (Locke 23; 28). Hence, it is within the rights of men to exchange goods for metals because he does not waste resources, and hoarding metals do not infringe the rights of others (Locke 28-29).

Thus, money allowed for the valuation of items beyond what is necessary for survival, the introduction of scarcity, and was not restricted by the law of nature, which allows for unlimited accumulation and an “inequality of private possessions” (Locke 30).

[1] Law of nature: to “preserve the rest of mankind” and not take away “what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another” (Locke 9).

References

Locke, J. (1980). Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.