Locke's treatise on property effectively legitimized this same process of theft and robbery during the enclosure movement in Europe. Locke clearly articulated capitalism's freedom to build on freedom to steal. He clearly stated that property is created in its 'spiritual' form as manifested in the control of capital by removing resources from nature and mixing them with labor. According to Locke, only capital could add value to appropriated nature, and hence only those who own the capital have the natural right to own natural resources; a right that supersedes the common rights of others with prior claims. Though capital is defined as a source of freedom, this freedom is founded upon the denial of freedom to the land, forests, rivers, and biodiversity that capital claims as its own. Because property obtained through privatization of commons is equated with freedom, those commoners laying claim to it are perceived to be depriving the freedom of the owners of that capital. Thus, peasants and tribals who demand the return of their rights and access to resources are regarded as thieves and saboteurs...Locke clearly states that it is not the labor of the horse or the serf that creates "property" but the "spiritual" labor of the one who owns the horse and the serf. Interestingly, it was also Locke who said that there must be "enough and as good left in common for others" and that no person shall take from the commons more than he can use. But the dominant culture took the former, disposed of the latter, and this completely changed how we view ourselves, how we view nature, how we view labor, property, and how we view our natural, 'inalienable' rights.

What It Means

This is a placeholder explanation generated by the low-overhead model. It interprets "Locke's treatise on property effectively legitimized this same process of theft and robbery during the enclosure movement in Europe. Locke clearly articulated capitalism's freedom to build on freedom to steal. He clearly stated that property is created in its 'spiritual' form as manifested in the control of capital by removing resources from nature and mixing them with labor. According to Locke, only capital could add value to appropriated nature, and hence only those who own the capital have the natural right to own natural resources; a right that supersedes the common rights of others with prior claims. Though capital is defined as a source of freedom, this freedom is founded upon the denial of freedom to the land, forests, rivers, and biodiversity that capital claims as its own. Because property obtained through privatization of commons is equated with freedom, those commoners laying claim to it are perceived to be depriving the freedom of the owners of that capital. Thus, peasants and tribals who demand the return of their rights and access to resources are regarded as thieves and saboteurs...Locke clearly states that it is not the labor of the horse or the serf that creates "property" but the "spiritual" labor of the one who owns the horse and the serf. Interestingly, it was also Locke who said that there must be "enough and as good left in common for others" and that no person shall take from the commons more than he can use. But the dominant culture took the former, disposed of the latter, and this completely changed how we view ourselves, how we view nature, how we view labor, property, and how we view our natural, 'inalienable' rights." in the context of "Vandana Shiva Reclaiming the Commons: Biodiversity, Traditional Knowledge, and the Rights of Mother Earth (2020)" to mean that wisdom is timeless.