Movatterモバイル変換

American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 47, No. 1, July 2002, Pp. 2003 by the Midwest Political Science Association

Zuckert (1996, 234-5) perceptively observes that "Jefferson formulates this extraordinary right to democracy when he assimilates the public sphere entirely to the theory of private property, that is, when he comes to see the state more completely through the lens of the Lockean theory of property and property rights." More importantly, the parallel between self-government and property reveals the distance separating Jefferson�s from Locke�s political economy. In reconceptualizing the state from the standpoint of property rights, Jefferson exposes the political dimensions of ownership. An essential aspect of economic liberty is the equal right of individuals to "manage" or "govern" their "persons and property" (TJ to James Madison [Sept. 6, 1789] 1999, 596; see also TJ to Samuel Kercheval [July 12, 1816] 1999, 212). Self-employed proprietors exercise judgment and discretion in mastering their distinctive callings and devising strategies to sustain their households in comfortable independence. They plan, schedule, and allocate tasks and resources in light of their understanding of family needs and commercial opportunities. This is property�s political face: "the management of ... our farms, our mills, and merchants� stores" (TJ to Joseph Cabell [Feb. 2, 1816] 1999, 204).

Jefferson�s theory of property, in contrast to Locke�s, precludes the rise of capitalist wage relations. Employers execise a form of political power: they command the labor of their workers. They neither menace nor invade the workers� personal rights; their authority is subject to the terms of the employment contract. But Jefferson offers a broader understanding of power: the owner�s right to make binding decisions in the workplace is secured by property arrangements that leave wage-earners with no choice but to place themselves under the "ordinary discipline" of their employer (Locke II, 85). Compelling individuals to relinquish the right to direct their labor is equivalent to compelling them to relinquish the right to direct their government: both are inconsistent with independence. Sustained control over the activities of other people fosters moral irresponsibility, among rulers and ruled, employers and wage-earners. "It is ... by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend," writes Jefferson (to Joseph Cabell [Feb. 2, 1816] 1999, 205), "that all will be done for the best."