Locke vs. Rousseau

Locke and Rousseau think that civil society comes into place because of property, but it is interesting that they do not agree on the the idea that property should or should not exist. Locke believes that ownership, hence property, is the purpose for man's existence through work, but Rousseau seems to say that property was simply invented because someone put his name on something and called it his. Rousseau believes that "the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one" (44). It seems that Rousseau says that simply stating this idea would have "spared" many wars. In addition, Locke and Rousseau think that nature provided man with all that man needed, but Locke believes that reason led man to make his property, and Rousseau believes that instinct led man to "make use of [the products of the earth]" (44-45).

So, Rousseau and Locke do not have the same idea as to what property is, but which idea sounds more like what we think property is? I think that we use both ideas of property today because people always attach their name to something they put work into, but it can also be very easy for people to attach their name onto something that they did not work for. Are Locke and Rousseau both right although they do not agree on this point? I think so. But, if we believe that both of these types of properties exist, what is the true definition of how one attains a piece of property? Is it simply putting your name on something? Does it require work? Is it something else?

Also, is Rousseau right? Would wars be spared if we did not have an idea of property? If we did not have property, forty people could try to eat the same apple, and they would end up fighting for that apple, and wouldn't a war start because of the lack of ownership that apple has?