Introduction Private property is one of the concepts that have been viewed differently at certain periods of the development of human society, which lays the ground for the evolution of countries’ economic and political agendas. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were prominent philosophers who had a considerable effect on the way the attitude towards the concept crystalized (Capaldi and Lloyd 10). The two thinkers agreed on some basic features of private property but had opposing opinions concerning the conditions under which its acquisition could be legitimate. This paper includes an analysis of the two frameworks and the justification for the adoption of one of the perspectives. Labor as a Legitimate Way to Acquire Private Property As mentioned above, the two philosophers agree that labor is one of the primary elements of property. Locke state that when a man takes a natural resource and “he hath mixed his labor with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property” (118). The thinker stresses that land, as well as anything in the world, was given to all mankind, so every person has the right to use everything the planet has to offer. However, only invested efforts can make a natural resource somebody’s property. According to Locke, a person can claim the right to own some land if the individual is ready to make this part of the world flourish (118). A simple illustration of the property consistent with Locke’s view is the situation when a woman picks an apple, the fruit becomes her property as she invested her labor in order to enjoy it. Rousseau also places a significant value on labor, but this element is not central when it comes to the justification of the acquisition of private property. The philosopher puts this component into the social context stressing that the community has to be the defining force that justifies people’s right to acquire property (Goldoni 234). This element of private property acquisition will be discussed below. Jean-Jacques Rousseau adds that the right to own property is not given by “an empty ceremony” but “by virtue of” people’s “intention of work and to cultivate it” (172). It is emphasized that the person can be granted the right to own land if he/she can make it flourish and evolve. Limits of Property The two thinkers also stress that the boundaries of private property are critical for ensuring just ownership. Locke and Rousseau agree that an individual should not try to own more that he or she can manage properly (Pierce 5). If the land given to a person does not bring any fruit or the produced riches are spoiled, the individual should lose the right to own this property. It is noteworthy that the two philosophers see the consequences of spoiled resources a bit differently (Miah and Suzuki 15). Locke concentrates on the impact on nature and evolutionary aspects. The thinker emphasizes that rotten products do not lead to further development and do not encourage people to work. The thinker refers to Christian values and stresses that the world was given to humankind for further development and improvement. Locke argues that when people failed to use “the products of nature” that rotted, they “offended against the common law of nature” and were “liab