Money vs. Property

            If you ask someone what the most valuable thing is in their life, you would get a few different answers. Some would say relationships with others. Some would say safety. But more often than not, people would say money. And it makes sense. Money is the means to most things in society today. It can buy you food and water to survive. It can buy you shelter. It is an essential in almost all societies today.

When John Locke wrote about inalienable rights in Second Treatise of Government, he chose three things, two metaphysical and one physical. But that physical thing was not money; it was property. Throughout the rest of the book, he continues to mention property and how we have a natural right to it and how the end of government is to protect that right. Why is this so critical to Locke? I understand that property does have value, probably more so today than when Locke wrote his treatise, but why wouldn’t money be the thing that has more value? He points out money is an arbitrary thing, but that arbitrary thing is the reason most people have property. Wouldn’t that be of more value than the property itself? People don’t trade their property to purchase things. Property is limited to a physical space while money can be saved infinitely. To me it seems that money would be something more valuable than property because it can be used in more ways than property can.