>The labor theory of property, not value. Locke did say that 90 or
>99% of the value of stuff improved by labor was due to the labor it
>embodied, but the first LTV is due to Sir William Petty rather than
>Locke; Locke's theory of "value" is too underdeveloped to count.
What do we we gain by denying that this is "really" an LTV, even if it might not be as "developed" as later economists make it? Can we separate the matters of property and value in Locke, anyway? He arges that it is *because* labour makes such a difference to the value of a thing that "the Property of labour should be able to over-ballance the Community of Land". [para.40] The observations about the source of value are not incidental to the argument.
>He was interested in property entitlements, and argued that (1) I
>own my body and its labor, and (2) I therefore own what I "mix" my
>labor with, as long as (a) no one else has mixed their labor with it
>first, and (b) I leave enough and as good for others.
... and as long as (c) I don't let anything go to waste (which can happen in the absence of money) [para.46] and as long as (d) I labour with my property as God intended, in the manner of an "Industrious and Rational" person [para.34ff].
These are both important parts of the general theory, since it is these qualififications -- rather than (a) or (b) -- which work to generate Locke's influential opinions about why it is OK to go to North America and drive the inhabitants off the land.
C. --
========== Chris Brooke