Inabsolutetermstheinstitutionofownershipisancient，nodoubt；butitisyoungcomparedwithblood-relationship，thestate，ortheimmortalgods。Especiallyisittruethatitsfullerdevelopmentisrelativelylate。NotuntilacomparativelylatedateinWestEuropeanhistoryhasownershipcometobeemancipatedfromallrestrictionsofanon-pecuniarycharacterandtostandinawhollyimpersonalposition，withoutadmixtureofpersonalresponsibilityorclassprerogative。2*Freedomandinviolabilityofcontracthasnotuntilrecentlybeentheunbrokenrule。Indeed，ithasnotevenyetbeenacceptedwithoutqualificationandextendedtoallitemsowned。Therestillareimpedimentsinthewayofcertaintransfersandcertaincontracts，andthereareexemptionsinfavorofpropertyheldbycertainprivilegedpersons，andespeciallybycertainsacredcorporations。Thisappliesparticularlytothemorebackwardpeoples；butnowhereisthe“cashnexus“freefromalladmixtureofalienelements。Ownershipisnotall-pervadingandall-dominant，butitpervadesanddominatestheaffairsofcivilizedpeoplesmorefreelyandwidelythananyothersinglegroundofaction，andmorethanithaseverdonebefore。Therangeandnumberofrelationsanddutiesthatarehabituallydisposedofonapecuniaryfootingaregreaterthaninthepast，andapecuniarysettlementisfinaltoadegreeunknowninthepast。Thepecuniarynormhasinvadedthedomainoftheolderinstitutions，suchasblood-relationship，citizenship，orthechurch，sothatobligationsbelongingundertheoneortheotherofthesemaynowbeassessedandfulfilledintermsofamoneypayment，althoughthenotionofapecuniaryliquidationseemstohavebeenwhollyremotefromtherangeofideas-habitsofthought-onwhichtheserelationsanddutieswereoriginallybased。
Thisisnottheplaceforresearchintotheoriginandtheprimitivephasesofownership，norevenforinquiryintotheviewsofpropertycurrentintheearlydaysoftheWesternculture。Buttheviewscurrentonthisheadatpresent-theprincipleswhichguidemen’sthinkingandroughlydefinetherightlimitsofdiscretioninpecuniarymatters-thiscommon-senseapprehensionofwhataretheproperlimits，rights，andresponsibilitiesofownership，isanoutgrowthofthetraditions，experiences，andspeculationsofpastgenerations。
Thereforesomenoticeofthecharacterofthesetraditionalviewsandthecircumstancesoutofwhichtheyhavearisenintherecentpastisnecessarytoanunderstandingofthepartwhichtheyplayinmodernlife。3*Thetheoryofpropertyprofessedatagiventimeandinagivenculturalregionshowswhatisthehabitualattitudeofmen，forthetimebeing，onquestionsofownership；
foranytheorythatgainswidespreadanduncriticalacceptancemustcarryacompetentformulationofthedeliverancesofcommonsenseonthematterwithwhichitdeals。Otherwiseitwillnotbegenerallyaccepted。Andsuchacommonplaceviewisinitsturnanoutcomeofprotractedexperienceonthepartofthecommunity。
ThemoderntheoriesofpropertyrunbacktoLocke，4*ortosomesourcewhichforthepresentpurposeisequivalenttoLocke；
who，onthisasonotherinstitutionalquestions，hasbeenprovedbythetestoftimetobeacompetentspokesmanformoderncultureinthesepremises。AdetailedexaminationofhowthematterstoodinthetheoreticalrespectbeforeLocke，andwhence，andbywhatprocessofselectionanddigestion，Lockederivedhisviews，wouldleadtoofarafield。Thetheoryissufficientlyfamiliar，forinsubstanceitis，andforthebetterpartoftwocenturieshasbeen，heldasanarticleofcommonsensebynearlyallmenwhohavespokenfortheinstitutionofproperty，withtheexceptionofsomefewandlatedoubters。5*
ThismodernEuropean，common-sensetheorysaysthatownershipisa“NaturalRight。“Whatamanhasmade，whatsoever“hehathmixedhislaborwith，“thathehastherebymadehisproperty。Itishistodowithitashewill。Hehasextendedtotheobjectofhislaborthatdiscretionarycontrolwhichinthenatureofthingsheofrightexercisesoverthemotionsofhisownperson。
Itishisinthenatureofthingsbyvirtueofhishavingmadeit。“Thuslabor，inthebeginning，gavearightofproperty。“Thepersonalforce，thefunctionalefficiencyoftheworkmanshapingmaterialfactstohumanuse，isinthisdoctrineacceptedasthedefinitive，axiomaticgroundofownership；behindthistheargumentdoesnotpenetrate，exceptitbetotracetheworkman’screativeefficiencybacktoitsulteriorsourceinthecreativeefficiencyoftheDeity，the“GreatArtificer。“Withtheearlyspokesmenofnaturalrights，whethertheyspeakforownershiporforothernaturalrights，itiscustomarytorestthecasefinallyonthecreator’sdiscretionarydispositionsandworkmanlikeefficiency。ButthereferenceofnaturalrightsbacktothechoiceandcreativeworkoftheDeityhas，eveninLocke，anairofbeinginsomedegreeperfunctory；andlaterinthelife-historyofthenatural-rightsdoctrineitfallsintoabeyance；whereasthecentraltenet，thatownershipisanaturalrightrestingontheproductiveworkandthediscretionarychoiceoftheowner，graduallyrisessuperiortocriticismandgathersaxiomaticcertitude。TheCreatorpresently，inthecourseoftheeighteenthcentury，dropsoutofthetheoryofownership。
Itmaybeworthwhiletoindicatehowthisultimategroundofownership，asconceivedbymoderncommonsense，differsfromthegroundonwhichrightsofthelikeclasswerehabituallyfelttorestinmediaevaltimes。Customaryauthoritywastheproximategroundtowhichrights，powers，andprivilegeswerethenhabituallyreferred。Itwasfeltthatifaclearcaseofdevolutionfromasuperiorcouldbemadeout，therightclaimedwastherebyestablished；andanyclaimwhichcouldnotbebroughttorestonsuchanact，orconstructiveact，ofdevolutionwasfelttobeinaprecariouscase。Thesuperiorfromwhomrights，whetherofownershiporotherwise，devolvedheldhispowersbyatenureofprowessfortifiedbyusage；theinferioruponwhomgivenrightsandpowersdevolvedheldwhatfelltohislotbyatenureofserviceandfealtysanctionedbyuseandwont。Therelationwasessentiallyapersonalone，arelationofstatus，ofauthorityandsubservience。Hereditarystandinggaveapresumptionofownership，ratherthanconversely。Inthelastresortthechainofdevolutionbyvirtueofwhichallrightsandpowersofthecommonmanpertainedtohimwastobetracedbackthroughasequenceofsuperiorstothehighest，sovereignsecularauthority，throughwhominturnitranbacktoGod。Butneitherinthecaseofthetemporalsovereignnorinthatofthedivinesovereignwasitfeltthattheircompetencetodelegateordevolvepowersandrightsrestedonaworkmanlikeorcreativeefficiency。ItwasnotsomuchbyvirtueofHisofficeascreatorasitwasbyvirtueofHisofficeassuzerainthattheDeitywasfelttobethesourceandarbiterofhumanrightsandduties。Inthecourseofculturalchange，asthemedievalrangeofideasandofcircumstancesbeginstotakeonamoremoderncomplexion，God’screativerelationtomundaneaffairsisreferredtowithgrowingfrequencyandinsistenceindiscussionsofallquestionsofthisclass；butforthepurposeinhandHiscreativerelationtohumanrightsdoesnotsupersedeHisrelationofsovereigntyuntilthemoderneraiswellbegun。ItmaybesaidthatGod’stenureofofficeinthemedievalconceptionofthingswasatenurebyprowess，andmen，ofhighandlowdegree，heldtheirrightsandpowersofHimbyaserviletenure。Ownershipinthisschemewasastewardship。Itwasastewardshipproximatelyunderthediscretionofasecularlord，moreremotelyunderthediscretionofthedivineOverlord。Andthequestionthenpressingforananswerwhenapointofcompetencyorlegitimacywasraisedinrespectofanygivenhumanarrangementorinstitutionwasnot，WhathathGodwrought？but，WhathathGodordained？
ThismedievalrangeofconceptionsfirstbegantobreakdownandgiveplacetomodernnotionsinItaly，intheRenaissance。
ButitwasintheEnglish-speakingcommunitiesthattherangeofideasuponwhichreststhemodernconceptofnaturalrightsfirstgatheredformandreachedacompetentexpression。Thisholdstruewithrespecttothemoderndoctrinesofnaturalrightsascontrastedwiththecorrespondingancientdoctrines。ThecharacteristicallymoderntraitsofthedoctrineofnaturalrightsareofEnglishderivation。Thisispeculiarlytrueasregardsthenaturalrightofownership。Thematerial，historicalbasisofthisEnglishrightofownership，consideredasahabitofthought，isgivenbythemoderneconomicfactorsofhandicraftandtrade，incontrastwiththemedievalinstitutionsofstatusandprowess。England，ascontrastedwiththeContinent，duringmoderntimesrapidlysubstitutedtheoccupationofthemerchantandtheubiquitousfreeartisanasthetone-givingfactorsofhereverydaylife，inplaceoftheprince，thesoldier，andthepriest。Withthischangeinthedominantinterestsofeverydaylifecameacorrespondingchangeinthedisciplinegivenbythehabitsofeverydaylife，whichshowsitselfinthegrowthofanewrangeofideasastothemeaningofhumanlifeandanewgroundoffinalityforhumaninstitutions。Newaxiomsofrightandtruthsupplanttheoldasnewhabitsofthoughtsupersedetheold。
Thisprocessofsubstitution，asastrugglebetweenrivalconceptsoffinalityinpoliticaltheory，reachedadramaticclimaxintherevolutionof1688。AsabattleofaxiomsthetransitioncomestoaheadinthecontroversybetweenJohnLockeandSirRobertFilmer。Filmerwasthelasteffectivespokesmanofthemedievalaxiomofdevolution。Locke’stracingofnaturalrights，therightofpropertyamongtherest，backtotheworkmanlikeperformanceoftheCreator，markstheforminwhich，atthepointoftransition，themodernviewpaysitsrespectstothesupersededaxiomofdevolutionandtakesleaveofit。
Thescopegiventotherightofownershipinlatermoderntimesisanoutgrowthoftheexigenciesofmercantiletraffic，oftheprevalenceofpurchaseandsaleina“moneyeconomy。“Thehabitsofthoughtenforcedbytheseexigenciesandbytheubiquitousandeverrecurringresorttopurchaseandsaledecidethatownershipmustnaturally，normally，beabsoluteownership，withfreeandunqualifieddiscretionintheuseanddisposalofthethingsowned。Socialexpediencymayrequireparticularlimitationsofthisfulldiscretion，butsuchlimitationsarefelttobeexceptionalderogationsfromthe“natural“scopeoftheowner’sdiscretion。
Ontheotherhand，themetaphysicalgroundofthisrightofownership，theultimatefactbyvirtueofwhichsuchadiscretionaryrightvestsintheowner，ishisassumedcreativeefficiencyasaworkman；heembodiestheworkofhisbrainandhandinausefulobject，-primarily，itisheld，forhisownpersonaluse，and，byfurtherderivation，fortheuseofanyotherpersontowhoseuseheseesfittotransferit。Theworkman’sforce，ingenuity，anddexteritywastheultimateeconomicfactor，-ultimateinamannerpatenttothecommonsenseofagenerationhabituatedtothesystemofhandicraft，howeverdoubtfulsuchaviewmayappearintheeyesofagenerationinwhoseapprehensiontheworkmanisnolongertheprimemovernorthesole，orevenchief，efficientfactorintheindustrialprocess。Thefreeworkman，masterofhisownmotionsandwithdiscretionastowhathewouldturnhiseffortsto，iftoanything，hadbyLocke’stimebecomeanhabitualfactinthelifeoftheEnglishcommunitytosuchadegreethatfreelabor，ofthecharacterofhandicraft，wasaccepteduncriticallyasthefundamentalfactorinallhumaneconomy，andasthepresumptiveoriginalfactinindustryandinthestruggleforwealth。Sosettleddidthishabitofthoughtbecomethatnoquestionwasentertainedastothetruthoftheassumption。
Itbecameaprincipleofthenaturalorderofthingsthatfreelaboristheoriginalsourceofwealthandthebasisofownership。Inpointofhistoricalfact，nodoubt，suchwasnotthepedigreeofmodernindustryormodernownership；buttheserene，undoubtingassumptionofLockeandhisgenerationonlystandsoutthemorestronglyandunequivocallyforthisitsdiscrepancywithfact。ItisallthemoreevidentlyacompetentexpressionofthetrendwhichEnglishcommonsensewasfollowingatthistime，sincethisdoctrineofa“natural“rightofpropertybasedonproductivelaborcarriesallbeforeit，inthefaceofthefacts。InthismatterEnglishthought，orratherEnglishcommonsense，hasled；andtheadvancedContinentalpeopleshavefollowedtheEnglishleadastheformofeconomicorganizationexemplifiedbytheEnglish-speakingcommunitieshascometoprevailamongtheseContinentalpeoples。