Yes, because as Locke used the word property, it was used in small and wide understandings. It was within of human well-being and belongings. He argued that it was a natural right to have property and was determined from work. John Locke believed that claiming of property was made by the value of work or jobs. And property went ahead of government, but the governemt just can't get rid of the area of the subjects immediately. He believed that human nature was described by reason and understanding. Everyone was equal and independent and had the right to defend themselves, based on "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But Locke thought that the thought of defending natural rights weren't enough. The work creates property, but there's a certain limit to its collection. And as for Locke, the property that were not used was just a waste and offensive against nature. But people can trade their many short-lived supplies to the ones that would last longer and that will not hurt or offend in anyway the natural law. And the use of money cancels the limits of collection. He wasn't stressing over the social contract making civil society or the law of land managing property. He is aware about the problem, but he doesn't do anything about it. He just thought that maybe government would do the job. But most of his thoughts are obviously not right. Even so, Locke supports the property of work, and still carries the unlimited collection of wealth.