The debate over property is far from settled

Lesen Sie die deutsche Version hier.

On a cool October evening in Zurich, in the choir hall of Bühl Church, the focus was on a man who died over three centuries ago. John Locke, pioneer of liberal thought, lived through civil war, plague, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89, which secured the Bill of Rights and laid the foundations of parliamentary government. His then-radical thesis was simple but groundbreaking: political order does not arise from birth or divine grace, but from consent. Property stems from labor, not bloodlines. The evening’s host was the Meetup group Philosophical Minds Zurich.

“Can you sell yourself?” one participant asked. The question was whether a person could voluntarily choose slavery. Locke rejected the idea outright. Freedom, he argued, is inalienable; it cannot be surrendered, not even willingly. The audience debated whether modern employment contracts create similar gray zones. A student pointed to food-delivery riders, laboring under constant stress: “They may have a choice, but is it truly freedom if they’re under constant surveillance?” Locke would likely have answered: wherever dependence grants absolute power, freedom is compromised.

The discussion grew even sharper around the issue of property. Locke argued that ownership arises when someone mixes their labor with nature. Whoever tills a field may claim it. But he also drew a firm boundary: no one may take more than they can use. Surplus left to rot is unjust. In Zurich this triggered lively questions. Does the principle apply to empty apartments hoarded by investors? Or to the mountains of digital data stockpiled by corporations, never to be used? “What about my fallow garden?” one participant asked, half serious, half teasing. “If my neighbor plants vegetables there, does it become his?” The group laughed, but the question stuck.

Before long, the debate turned to contemporary dilemmas. Cryptocurrencies, artificial intelligence, intellectual property: how does Locke’s concept of labor fit a world where algorithms write code and digital works can be copied endlessly? “If an AI model generates text, who owns the labor?” a young developer asked. Others drew geopolitical parallels. The question of unused land prompted comparisons with Israel and Palestine. “Locke insisted that there must always be enough, and of good quality, left for everyone,” one older participant recalled. It became clear: Locke’s seemingly straightforward formula runs aground on modern political realities.

By the end of the evening, nothing had been resolved. Locke had once again done what he has done for centuries: spark disputes without settling them. Yet that is his strength. Today, whether the topic is gig work, housing shortages, digital data, or global conflicts, we must keep asking: when does labor become property, when does freedom turn into fiction, and when does ownership amount to theft from the common good? The most unsettling conclusion in Zurich that night was this: property is not a law of nature. It is a perpetual dispute that concerns us all. (Alex Buxeda)