A Chartalist Critique of John Locke's Theory of Property, Accumulation, and Money: or, is it Moral to Trade Your Nuts for Gold?

Abstract

The focus of this paper is John Locke's theoretical defense of economic inequality. It is well known that Locke identified labor as the original and just foundation of property. Succinctly, Locke's was a labor theory of property. Now, while Locke saw private property as legitimate, he proposed that the state of nature within which people interact is part of a social system that is regulated by distinct rules that limit accumulation. There is nothing in Locke's initial argument that allows for unbounded accumulation and consequent inequality. The justification for unbridled accumulation comes later, and rests squarely on Locke's treatment of money as a non-exploitive institution. For Locke, money allows unlimited accumulation while still adhering to the rules he established to govern morally correct behavior. In this paper, we challenge Locke's position by contrasting his exchange-based view of money with the debt-based or Chartalist theory of money. We demonstrate that when money is properly conceived, Locke's own moral strictures regarding property are violated, and his theoretical defense of the accumulation process is undermined.accumulation, chartalism, debt, exchange, Locke, money, privilege, property, spoilage, taxes,

The Rise of Money and Class Society: The Contributions of John F. Henry

“…Rather than a thing, money is "a social relation of credit and debt" (Ingham 2004a, 25;see also Ingham 1996), which is by its nature an unequal social relation. Henry (2004) elucidates this point well: "For every debtor there must be a creditor, and such a relationship is one of inequality with creditors having economic power over debtors" (84). Obviously, there could be no debt in egalitarian societies organized around the practice of hospitality (see Bell and Henry 2001).…”

“…As Henry (2004) would put it, "the façade of equality had to be maintained while inequality was growing and solidifying" (87). 6 To service the ritual, sacrificial offerings were made, mostly in oxen, whereby religious officials stipulated the precise quality, type and quantity of cattle to be contributed, thereby establishing the first standardized unit of account guaranteed by the authorities (Laum 1924;Desmonde 1962;Seaford 2004;Semenova 2011aSemenova , 2011bPeacock 2013).…”

“…The final and critical point Henry makes is that the rise of class society and inequality took place alongside the emergence of money, whereby money played a key role in establishing, maintaining and exacerbating inequality and class division in societies (see Henry 2004). To put it simply, as soon as one witnesses the emergence of money, one observes the rise of class society and socioeconomic inequalities.…”

“…For those who thought that inequality was natural and inescapable, John Henry (2004) presents a convincing account of the not-so-natural rise of socioeconomic disparities and classes in ancient Egypt. In fact, Henry's contribution clearly demonstrates that the rise of inequality in ancient Egypt was more akin to an accident of history (though a gradually occurring one), rather than history's natural progression.…”

“…Henry examines the rise of such ideology in western societies, including John Locke's elaborate theoretical justification of unequal distribution of wealth (see Bell et al 2004). In his case study of ancient Egypt, Henry (2004) shows how religious ideology played a crucial part in justifying the newly emerging hierarchical social structures.…”