The Problems of Private Property

Throughout history, private property and wealth have caused issues and tensions among families and friends, neighbors, and other countries. These cause people to become greedy because everyone always wants what they do not have and thus, they are the driving forces behind many arguments, crimes, and wars our world has faced. Both Thomas More and Jean-Jacques Rousseau agree that private property is the source of all evil. In More’s Utopia, he talks about the ills of owning private property and that ridding society of this property is the only way to obtain happiness. More proves his point by describing the communal way of life the inhabitants of utopia live and the benefits they receive from it. Rousseau too talks about the evils of private property in his A Discourse on Inequality. He explains how private property is the sole reason for the inequalities among men, however, he believes that man has strayed so far from nature that there is no solution to this problem. Both Thomas More and Rousseau argue that private property is the root of all evil, leading to inequalities that cause greed and hatred among men, thus preventing individuals from obtaining happiness. Furthermore, More and Rousseau propose that communal property is not an issue and in fact, is the way to gain happiness; however, More believes this is still a possible way of life whereas Rousseau does not.

In both More’s Utopia and Rousseau’s A Discourse on Inequality, they talk about the issue of private property and the result of owning it. More, through the character of Hythloday, presents the problems associated with private property. He writes, “I am firmly persuaded that there is no way property can be equitably and justly distributed or the affairs of mortal men managed so as to make them happy unless private property is utterly abolished”(More, 47). He goes on to say that “if it remains, there will also always remain a distressing and unavoidable burden of poverty and anxiety on the backs of the largest and best part of the human race” (More, 47). More believes that private property leads to poverty and inequalities of wealth, therefore causing some to stress and worry more than others. This, he believes, prevents individuals from truly being happy. It allows a small amount of people to obtain wealth and maybe happiness, but this is at the expense of the working class of society. This parallels Rousseau’s argument, because he too believes that property causes inequalities that will benefit a few while hurting the rest of society. Rousseau writes, “the burning passion to enlarge ones relative fortune, not so much from real need as to put oneself ahead of others, inspires in all men a dark propensity to injure one another” (Rousseau, 119). He continues by saying that men have a “hidden desire to gain an advantage at the expense of other people,” and that “all these evils are the main effects of property and the inseparable consequences of nascent inequality” (Rousseau, 119). All people care about is advancing their own status and becoming “better” than their neighbor. Rousseau claims that private property, having established civil society, makes the civil man greedy. It makes people over indulge in things that others may need to survive. Therefore, private property is the reason for the inequalities among men. It is the reason for all the “crimes, war, murders…misery and horror” (Rousseau, 109) the human race has faced. Private property, in Rousseau’s opinion, destroyed the natural world and the way nature intended us to live, thus destroying true happiness. Both More and Rousseau agree that private property is the reason for the inequalities, the problems, and the evils of the world.

Although More and Rousseau believe that private property is bad, they both agree that communal property fosters many benefits for individuals and society. More introduces the concept of communal living through Hythloday with his island of utopia. On utopia, everything is shared communally and there is no private property. This includes housing, goods, supplies, and even money. The entire island is described as a single household, where everyone works together for the common good. This allows for a more relaxed work schedule, while simultaneously producing an abundance of goods. The inhabitants are not working long, arduous, 12 hour days, but rather they are efficiently working together, allowing no time for idleness so they are able to more effectively produce their goods. More writes, “Such behavior on the part of the people is bound to produce an abundance of everything, and when it is distributed equitably to everyone, it follows that no one can be reduced to poverty or forced to beg” (More, 73). Although there is no money on the island of utopia, no one is poor because everyone’s necessities are taken care of. This lack of poverty alleviates stress from the everyday lives of the inhabitants, for they do not have to worry about making a living or supporting a family. And although they may not have an abundance of wealth, “all are rich…for what greater wealth can there be than to be completely spared by any anxiety and to live with a joyful and tranquil frame of mind, with no worries about making a living…but secure about the liveliness and happiness of himself and his own” (More, 130). The absence of the issue of poverty alleviates a stress that allows the inhabitants of utopia to be truly happy. Rousseau too believes that communal property is the best way to live and that living like this is the way to obtain happiness. Rousseau presents the idea of communal living in a different way than More. He does not offer it as a solution, but rather he reflects on the past when man lived communally. He talks about early society, when man first began building huts to live. Rousseau writes, “the habit of living together generated the sweetest sentiments known to man, conjugal love and paternal love” (Rousseau, 112). They would build these huts on common ground where families and groups would live together, but no one ever claimed the land to be their own or tried to take over the land their neighbor was living on. All recognized the land did not belong to them and was not theirs to call their own. This early society, when everyone lived together on the common ground, was the happiest time for man according to Rousseau. He says that this “golden mean between the indolence of the primitive state and the petulant activity of our own pride, must have been the happiest epoch and the most lasting” (Rousseau, 115). He believes that if man just stuck to the way nature intended them to live and continued to live the simple ways of early society, inequalities would not exist. Although Rousseau agrees with More that communal living is the best alternative and the way to produce happiness among men, his argument differs from More’s in that he does not believe that mankind has any hope to live communally. Whereas More believes that communal living can be achieved with utopia, Rousseau recognizes that the way men used to live was ideal and there is no hope of returning to that.

Although More presents this argument that the communal way of life is superior and private property is the demise of a society, he questions this through his character More. The character of More believes that the idea of communal living is absurd and not practical. He says, “It seems to me that no one can live comfortably where everything is held in common. For how can there be an abundance of goods when everyone stops working because he is no longer motivated by making a profit, and grows lazy because he relies on the labors of others”(More, 48). He argues that without private property, people will lack motivation and become lazy. If all of their basic necessities are taken care of, and they have no way to obtain any private property, he argues there is no incentive for them to work. The character More continues by saying, “when people are driven by want and there is no law which enables them to keep their acquisitions for their own use, wouldn’t everyone necessarily suffer from continual bloodshed and turmoil?”(More, 48). Here, he is acknowledging that man’s inner nature is greedy, and that he is motivated by the things he wants, not the things he needs. He believes that if people are not able to satisfy their wants, they will grow angry and develop hatred for each other. I have to agree with the character More on this point. Although I believe that in theory living communally and sharing everything equally is ideal, it is not practical. I agree that it will create a lazy society because no one will have motivation to work harder or improve their own life, because everyone has to be on equal living terms. I further this by agreeing with Rousseau’s point that it is impossible to go back to the way we used to live. Communal living may be the most ideal, but it is not practical.

Both More’s Utopia and Rousseau’s A Discourse on Inequality talk about the evils of private property. Both authors agree that private property leads to inequalities among men, causes issues such as poverty, and even is at the root of crimes and wars. More proposes the island of utopia as a solution, proving that communal living can work. However, he also questions this by saying that it is not practical. Rousseau on the other hand believes that it is impossible to go back to the old ways of life where everyone lived communally, but he too agrees that it is the best way to live. Because of the many problems associated with private property and the power and wealth hungry beasts it turns man into, society fails to achieve true happiness, and because of this, society cannot reach its maximum potential until private property is abolished.

 

References

A Discourse on Inequality, Translated by Maurice Cranston, Penguin Classics, 1984.

Utopia, Translated by Clarence H. Miller, 2nd ed. New Haven and London: Yale  University Press, 2014.