Discussion Paper No.362
Who do outcomes of housework belong to?

Takayuki YASHIMA*March 2017

TOHOKU ECONOMICS RESEARCH GROUP
Discussion Paper

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND

MANAGEMENT TOHOKU UNIVERSITY* Graduate School of Economics and Management,
Tohoku University, Japan

27-1 KAWAUCHI, AOBA-KU, SENDAI,
980-8576 JAPANAnarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) written by Robert Nozick is typical of libertarian
thought, which is modern liberal one. It is thought that his political philosophy is basedon the thesis of self-ownership. It means a normative thesis “that each person is themorally rightful owner of his own person and powers, and, consequently, that each is
free (morally speaking) to use those powers as he wishes, provided that he does not
deploy them aggressively against others.” 1) The origin of this thesis can be traced backto John Locke’s argument on property. He says, “Every Man has a Property in his own

Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and theWork of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of theState that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, andjoined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. ” 2)
If you accept the thesis, you will defend strong property right because each person has
entitlement toward all things they get by using things they have.
This leads to be against income redistribution whose policy is taken in the fields ofwelfare and social security. That’s why the thesis of self-ownership has been criticized invarious ways by anti-libertarian. In this connection, I had an opportunity to hear a typeof criticism to the thesis of self-ownership directly. I took part in a workshop for thestudy of community, which was held by Graduate School of Economics and Management,
Tohoku University, on September 24, 2016. The workshop was followed by a party. Andthen, one of the presenters asked me, “When you accept the thesis of self-ownership,should you think that, for example, curry and rice made by anyone in your family
belongs to the person and doesn’t belong to other members?” Then he goes, “It’s anunacceptable conclusion. Ought you to think your possessions are common to everyone
from the beginning?” In a word, this claim means the following: “Who do outcomes ofhousework belong to?” Here, I will reply to this question using the example of making
curry and rice as housework, which is for being easily comprehensible.
So, I’ll get back to the presenter’s statement. He seems to think it’s not reasonable
G. A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality, Cambridge University Press,
1995, p. 67.
2) John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, P. Laslett (ed.), Cambridge University
Press, 1690, sec. 27.
1)1

that property right to curry and rice belongs to only the person who makes that curryand rice, because other members in their family can’t get a meal.
Is this view appropriate? In order to make our argument easier, I assume that there isa family with husband and wife, and she usually does the cooking. Then, we have twocases to discuss who has property right to curry and rice. The first case is that thehusband works and the wife does housework. The second case is that the wife bothworks and does housework despite the couple work together for a living.
According to the thesis of self-ownership, in the first case, even though the wife
makes curry and rice, it’s difficult to say that it belongs to her properly. Because she
makes it using foodstuffs which are transformed from her husband’s income, or theoutcome of his labor. Generally, even though an individual A has mixed his labor withpossessions of an individual B, B ’s possessions keep on belonging to B. Even if a person
who wants somebody else’s car parked somewhere has painted the car, he will not beallowed to insist on that the car belongs to him because he has mixed his labor with it.
Therefore, the curry and rice will belong to the husband as long as you follow the thesisof self-ownership.
Next in the second case, it’s clear that the curry and rice made by the wife belongs toher.
Anyway, both in these cases, curry and rice belongs to one of the two. Some people aswell as the presenter may think that this is not able to explain the proper mode of life offamilies.
But worrying like this is needless fear. In fact, Article 762, paragraph 1 of Japanese
Civil Law sets the rule on property: “Property owned by one party before marriage andproperty obtained in the name of that party during marriage shall be separate property.”“Separate property means property owned by one party.” 3) This stands for “the principlethat my property is mine even if we are a married couple.” 4) And this rule also expresses
the idea of self-ownership. However, the phenomenon that family communities don’t

Uchida Takashi, Civil Law, Vol.4: Revised Edition, Tokyo University Press, 2004,
p.33 in Japanese.
4) Ibid.
3)

2

work well doesn’t appear even when this rule exists.
Actually, in terms of ethics, there is little point in arguing “Who do outcomes ofhousework belong to?” For Robert Nozick says, “The state may not use its coercive
apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit
activities to people for their own good or protection”, but “it is only coercive routes
toward these goals that are excluded, while voluntary ones remain.” 5) That is to say, it is
not banned for a person to spontaneously provide their goods and money in order to help
others in need. Moreover, husband and wife are usually bound to each other by thestrongest ties of confidential relationship. If they really are, it is natural that they try tohelp and support each other. Nozick says as if he supports such relationship and family
life, “A nation or protective agency may not compel redistribution between one
community and another, yet a community such as a kibbutz may redistribute within
itself (or give to another community or to outside individuals).” 6) Therefore, it is all rightthat one who cooks gives or redistributes meals to other members in a family
community regardless of whether outcomes of housework belong to anyone.
If the wife routinely says to her husband in the second case, “I made this curry andrice, so it’s mine. You don’t have any right to it. If you want to eat it, pay me somemoney,” you would feel your society terribly dull and lonely. How many people want tolive in such a bleak society? The idea which leads to assertion like this is opposite tolibertarian idea.
Consequently, the thesis of self-ownership doesn’t prevent you from running yourfamily community. If anything, when you deny the thesis of self-ownership and thinkthat goods are all common in the society, you will face problems. For even when a person
who gets hungry has suddenly visited you and says to you, “Let me get some meal,” you
can’t refuse their requirement.

5)
6)

Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books, 1974, p. ix.

Ibid., p. 321.

3