Possessive Individualism and Locke's Doctrine on Taxation

Abstract

Crawford Brough Macpherson's The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke has been republished just before the fiftieth anniversary of its first publication,1 which might constitute an approximation to a scholar's dream of immortality. Possessive Individualism was widely hailed as a path-breaking interpretation of seventeenth-century English political thought but, by the 1980s, was commonly judged to have been surpassed by subsequent critiques of its central claims. John Dunn wrote in 1980 that, “the analysis which Macpherson advances is at least as inadequate as his purely historical account of the development of liberal thought is inept.”2 I shall try to argue that the all-too-common dismissal of Possessive Individualism is ill-considered3 and that many of Macpherson's insights, particularly about Locke, retain substantial validity.Macpherson's central theses are that seventeenth-century English thought was conditioned by an emerging market society and that the primary task of thinkers was to justify private property and facilitate capital accumulation through the exchange of goods and labor services. These theses engendered spirited opposition from its first publication.4 I do not propose to take on the critics of the applicability of “possessive individualism” to Thomas Hobbes, the Levelers, and James Harrington,5 but wish to limit my remarks to critics of Macpherson's interpretation of Locke. I shall do so by means of an examination of Locke's doctrine of taxation and representation. Macpherson dealt with Locke's views on taxation and representation in passing; he argued that Locke could identify individual consent to taxation with the consent of a majority of elected representatives only because the class interests of the propertied overrode individual differences of interest amongst the landed interest (aristocrats and gentry), the moneyed men (bankers, goldsmiths and investors in government debt) and merchants.6 Locke, Macpherson wrote, restricted the franchise to those with taxable estate.7The fundamental criticism of Macpherson's Locke is that he was not primarily a capitalist apologist, devoted to a profit-maximizing ethos. Macpherson asserted that, for Locke, “the individual right of appropriation overrides any moral claims of the society. The traditional view that property and labour were social functions, and that the ownership of property involved social obligations, is thereby undermined.”8 This view, while supported by Leo Strauss and his followers,9 has been vigorously challenged by Locke scholars, such as James Tully, John C. Winfrey, John Dunn, and A. John Simmons.10 Macpherson's opponents cite Locke's First Treatise, where in the course of an argument against absolute monarchy and the eminent domain of the crown with respect to property, Locke wrote: “As Justice gives every Man a Title to the product of his honest Industry; so Charity gives every Man a Title to so much out of another's Plenty, as will keep him from extream want ….”11 Locke's “Venditio”, where Locke stipulated that a grain merchant may charge whatever the market may bear but may not allow citizens to starve by sailing away from a famine stricken city is also cited to support the view that Locke's view of property right retained traditional Christian views of property with those of an emerging market ethos.12By wrenching Locke's statement about the right to charity out of the context of his denial of eminent domain to the crown over a subject's property, Tully and others propose that Locke advocated a generalized right to charity. However, Gopal Sreenivasan rightly stated, “Locke decidedly does not mean that everyone has a right to meat, drink, and what not, even if he does not work: indeed his proposed reforms could hardly have had a more contrary objective.” Locke's Report to the Board of Trade indicates that if the needy are not forced to work, they will unjustly live off the labor of others.13 Locke wrote to William Molyneux and Cornelius Lyde (urging his reluctant agent [Lyde] to evict a widow from Locke's property) that those who do not work do not deserve to eat.14James Tully and John Simmons thought Locke's concept of a right to charity mandated egalitarian redistribution to the level before a monetary economy fostered vast inequalities of estates.15 However, Simmons distinguished between what Locke wrote and what he should have written to be consistent with certain of Locke's principles; with respect to Tully's view that property redistribution is mandated because of the inequities arising from the introduction of money, Simmons noted, “Unfortunately for Tully's reading, Locke actually says none of this (although we have seen that he should have said it).”16 Simmons correctly recognized that Lockean charity is limited to those men, women and children incapable of work but asserted that “the Lockean theory of rights (the best Lockean position) must include a stronger right to charity than the one literally described by Locke.”17Even though Macpherson made clear that his model of possessive individualism is applicable to Locke's mercantilism [where the state functions to organize economic resources to make England more powerful than Holland and France] as well as later doctrines of laissez-faire capitalism [where the state is ideally limited to policing property and contracts],18 Tully overstated his opposition to Macpherson in claiming, “that Locke's account is opposite to laissez-faire theories.”19 Locke's Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money (1691) and Further Considerations Concerning raising the Value of Money (1695) make three basic (and erroneous) claims: first, that the rate of interest cannot be regulated by governments; second, that money must circulate at its bullion value or that the government mint cannot place a value on coin independent of its value as silver bullion; third, that all taxes are ultimately born by landlords. Locke asserted that interest rates could not be legislated, despite his recognition of the fact that Jan de Witt had lowered the rate of interest in Holland but he attributed the efficacy of de Witt's legislation to a surplus of money in Holland.20 The government compromised between the proposal before Parliament to lower the rate of interest to 4 percent and Locke's view that interest rates could not be lowered by settling on a legislated rate of 5 percent in 1692.21 Locke's claim that interest rates were independent of government intervention was ideological, not empirical, as was his false claim that coins could not circulate at less than their bullion value and must be re-coined with milled edges to prevent clipping. Joyce Appleby argued that Locke's faulty economics arose from his desire to limit government authority on behalf of the propertied (the landlords and creditors) at the expense of the landless and the debtors, “The recoinage could be seen as an ingenious tax on the propertyless” to relieve the landowners and creditors for financing the Nine Years War (1688–97).22 Locke's economic writings were published at Baron Somers' request as efforts to cope with the enormous war debts occasioned by the Glorious or Bloodless Revolution (1688–89).Locke's major propositions were questioned in his time by William Lowndes, James Hodges, Sir Richard Temple, Nicholas Barbon and an anonymous pamphleteer who suggested that Locke must be a paid agent of Louis XIV for advocating raising the silver quotient of English coin.23 D. W. Jones made a powerful argument that the people Locke thought were treasonously clipping coins, the Goldsmiths, Bankers, “the Jews and other forainers”24 in fact preserved England's ability to remain in the war: Down to late 1694, the answers are clear enough. When trade failed, she survived by clipping the coin. It was by clipping that she obtained the bullion to pay her debts. Normally such bullion export would enforce an intense monetary squeeze, but clipping provided an escape, since down to late 1694, clipped coin still passed at face value, leaving the total value of the money stock unchanged …. Clipping not only saved England from a monetary squeeze, but also staved off that collapse in spending, output and employment which remittances and the failure of trade would otherwise have produced.25 Jones added that the Whig government's adoption of Locke's re-coinage scheme, (rather than Lowndes' idea that milled coins have a reduced amount of silver content than bullion to ensure a sufficiency of circulating coin) “produced a near disaster for England's war remittances” as well as crippling England's economy during 1696 and 1697.26 Thus, although Locke was a mercantilist and fervently wished to defeat France in the wars attendant on the Bloodless Revolution, his economic doctrines that governments could not set interest rates and that they should not have the power to set the silver rate of coin were an unhappy mixture of mercantilist and laissez-faire doctrines. At the risk of oversimplification, one might say that Locke's Considerations and Further Considerations advocate laissez-faire for the propertied and police for the property-less. Locke certainly thought that justice entailed the right of those with money to lend it at market rates and the right of landlords and creditors to be paid with the bullion rate of silver, rather than the clipped but circulating coin of the realm. The right of charity did not extend to debtors, tenant farmers, laborers and consumers who experienced mass starvation from the depletion of coin and the exportation of bullion arising from the government's adoption of Locke's re-coinage scheme.Contrary to the proponents of an egalitarian Locke, the Locke of Considerations made clear that, “the Landholder['s] … Interest is chiefly to be taken care of, it being a settled unmoveable Concernement in the Commonwealth” and that, “the Landowner, who is the person, that bearing the greatest burthens of the Kingdom, ought, I think, to have the greatest care taken of him, and enjoy as many Privileges, and as much Wealth, as the favour of the Law (with regard to the Publick-weal) confer on him.”27 However, Locke did not have a sentimental attachment to old aristocratic families that lacked money to improve their estates and fell into debt. Instead, he favored those like himself, “Men in England, who have Land, have Money too.”28 Neal Wood thought passages such as these from Considerations indicated that Locke was a proponent of agrarian capitalism29 but Locke made clear that trade was a major source of national wealth. In fact, he was an investor and participant in the Royal Africa Company, in the plantations in the Carolinas that made use of the cargo from Africa, and a member of the Board of Trade.Locke's theory of property right and Macpherson's interpretation of it are well known.30 Initially, humans had a right to appropriate from the common store that God and nature had provided for mankind when they mixed their labor with natural resources and acquired a property in the product of their labor, including the land they had cultivated or improved. Prior to the introduction of money, land was roughly equally distributed. But money, introduced by the common consent of mankind, eliminated the natural law restrictions on just acquisition, namely spoilage, leaving “enough and as good” for others, and acquisition through one's own efforts. Money does not spoil and enables proprietors to purchase slaves, servants and wage-laborers. As Locke stated three times in his economic writings, “Money is a barren thing, and produces nothing, but by compact transfers that Profit that was the Reward of one Man's Labour into another Man's Pocket.”31 Through commercial agriculture, productivity is raised and the poorest wage-laborer fares better than the richest king in pre-commercial societies.32 Though vast inequalities in property emerged with the introduction of money, humans retained “the great Foundation of Property,”33 namely, their ability to labor. Goods and labor services are justly exchanged according to the labor theory of value, which stipulates that products are exchanged according to the amount of labor they contain.However, the labor theory is far from straightforward. Hobbes' labor theory of value stated that, “from the two breasts of our common mother, God either freely giveth, or for labour selleth to mankind.”34 Locke's labor theory made nature a cruel stepmother with no free gifts since, “labour makes the far greatest part of things, we enjoy in this World”35 Indeed 9/10ths, 99/100ths36 or 999/1000ths37 are to labor, not and the the as in might that, in his economic Locke said that while money is produces and of value to wrote that Locke's attributed power to labor, since labor by cannot land and natural The economic a more of the of nature and labor in the of national but they do not a of the right to private property, and indeed their view that labor is not the source of the of property right in the the introduction of money that eliminated all the natural law restrictions on just appropriation of property and so of rightly out that Locke's view of land as raising value, on the sufficiency of the labor theory of It also an since land is in and the right of is the great of which would make England's for his did not any for his that Locke favored a tax on landed to allow the natural of society to be he made an between the and Some Considerations of the of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of The just exchange of by labor would be if the value added by land could be taken by governments in the of land Locke thought taxation was not like the Christian taxation individual or at least the consent of a majority of is “The cannot take from any Man any part of his his own thought Locke's view of consent to taxation was an of tax Locke an with “the of the it either by in the of or their by in the of Locke thought it that a pay out of his his for the of his should be to the which it part of the to the Macpherson thought that Locke individual consent to taxation with the consent of a majority of elected representatives because Locke favored a property for the franchise and because the class interests of the propertied overrode interests of and and the individual interests of propertied Dunn between the consent of and the consent of the but no account of Locke should have made this Dunn, although he was in his that the do not pay a of Locke's according to tax to be Locke asserted that part of the representation in to the which it to the Tully that every has property in his person, and Locke the franchise to every but that Locke not state the in the who that Locke favored such as Richard and that the of was that everyone paid which is but contrary to what Locke asserted in namely, that landlords bear the tax to Locke and Locke scholars, the land tax was not the major source of government before and the Glorious Dunn wrote that if individual consent is for taxation taxes only be gifts from …. of over this of the Richard indicates that the idea of consent to taxation is taxation the of to ensure its and a amongst that the be by the propose to Locke's of to his economic writings to this of taxation and to try to Locke made the claim that all taxation landowners when he that taxes were the major source of government is a in which the land tax could be said to be in to taxes our which people are to In Locke's the land tax was by means of and with The of so by was by who like many of his the of land taxes by who were more to the of made by the Richard Locke's view that landowners are the with his that, “the of the English land tax were not by the but by and their W. wrote, were to the land tax on to where and in of the at least this was when Locke's land tax was he wrote to his and of who to Cornelius for of the land to have the Lyde and Locke him as a to and taxes from Locke's were first introduced to during the English War but more during the The a major source of government the when it the and of while its as being born of and during the thought Locke's views on taxation from the of the between taxes and a that was the In from a of to his in the Locke and wrote that a was the means to taxes and that the power of the and a like two the that one the other did not landowners are the only his view that will not taxes on as to laborers cannot taxes they are at and must on taxes as and landlords must bear the tax Locke's merchant who a of does not pay the on it does the but it on in of whatever he and the who a of or because was to on the tax to landlords not to in The Locke's was be from of national in where and to times as much as the and on a cruel in three times with and less well but better than the and asserted that the was in the and in and of which were by men, and one of doctrine that the does not pay taxes on but in to have in the …. As Locke the argument a of faulty but its is that the on the of and so cannot bear taxation and correctly “Locke was much for his view that all taxes of whatever on which the of ultimately even of and the who well the between a a were the about the of Locke's view that landowners are the was it may have been a to the of with respect to the power of the When Locke first his theory that all taxation ultimately on the wrote in that, “the the are for a and against a because they are that if the be they shall it down the land tax will be so and when the war will be no by the to keep it Locke's on taxation do not in the of his writings on interest and money, which he wrote for during the but a from John to Locke in that Locke had made his views on landowners bearing all the taxes circulate to his and political questioned Locke's view that all taxes on him that despite Locke's “the will hardly be to and indicated that, on not but only less is for the money, and thereby the and not the pay the between the of Locke's Considerations and Further was a advocate of the tax as a more than the land tax of wars and less to the than taxes and asserted that all taxes ultimately are born by a political for the that landowners the tax and so the of Interest and in the that by such of the of England will a to a The economic C. D. supported and for Locke's about namely, that and percent from the to the late which were passed through and paid the of the and James to the The land which the were reluctant to would an for and of government Locke, the tax and possessive was also Locke, the of of government his of during the and of and published the Glorious Revolution, when William of the James on the of Locke's economic writings were first written at the of Locke's at the time of the War but were first published the Glorious Revolution at the of Baron wars Locke's economic writings to to the wars in and the arising from “the Bloodless Locke's of the war through land taxes was not in for the Nine Years War The war was paid for by the of clipping coins, which and a to which Locke was and by and land The of England, to which Locke was an was on the taxes of and The land tax was a much more source of government Locke as an investor favored the but as a political he favored the land that the best by the or and in the certain of the taxes (the of England, the the thought that Locke that the franchise was restricted to those who paid the land William to the in Locke's shall a the has been to land tax at least before the Locke stated that, part of the … but in to the which it to the John Simmons argued that Locke was for the of for on and taxable and should be not as franchise but as but does not the for should be from individual franchise and Richard that the in to also provided labor and services and for in of Locke's of to the However, Locke did not as did Hobbes and the Levelers, that services must be as he did for did he that labor services are in the of in as

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.