Nature, irrespective of the humans living with it, provides countless ecosystem services to the creatures on Earth: carbon sequestration, climate regulation, and nutrient cycling to name a few. Additionally, conservationists like Aldo Leopold argue that even if the Earth was not populated by living, cognizant beings, the plants and non-living features of nature would still have inherent value based off the fact that it exists in the first place and is a beautiful product of the world. Yet, in John Locke’s chapter “Property” from his book Second Treatise of Government and Henry George’s chapter “Seventh Part Justice of the Remedy” from his book Progress and Poverty, both of them assert that nature has no, or reduced, value until it is labored upon by human and that labor is the process in which humans claim ownership of nature’s parts. As an environmentalist and considering the crisis nature is in today, I find flawed logic regarding ownership, value of nature, and property as a whole.
Overall, both Locke and George subscribe to Blackstone’s “pick up theory,” where humans can own anything from nature that isn’t being currently used by mixing one’s labor into it. The main difference is that George believes land cannot be labored upon and thus cannot be owned. This is illogical, as land can be labored upon, as Locke confirms, and in the modern day, there is no land on Earth that has not been shaped or changed by humans in some way.
Additionally, both writers seem to follow the dogma that nature is separate from humans, particularly as said in the bible, as humans are given “dominion over all the Earth.” Thus, Locke and George’s arguments are entirely based off this truth from one God and that this God is right. Although I personally believe humans do not have inherent claim to rule other beings like animals and plants, I will go along with their assumption for this discussion.
The main issue with Locke and George’s argument is that, contrary to their belief, nature already has value and is being used. Although the trees in a forest may be untouched by a tribe, they are providing a service to the tribe by being a habitat for the tribe’s prey. This brings into question how much can be privately taken from nature before disrupting human’s current, more passive uses of nature.
Also under the assumption that nature has little to no value, Locke supposes that “wine [ is ] more valuable than water,” and labor is what adds all value. This may be so, but labor can add positive and negative value. Take the atomic bomb for instance. It has higher monetary value than a forest, as determined by humans and according to Locke, however which entity will produce more good relative to harm- the bomb or the forest? Yet again, Locke’s argument neglects the fact that nature, like forests, are providing services humans often take for granted.
Next, the two writers make assumptions regarding private right to property. Locke and George assume that every human has a private right to the fruits of their labor. Where does this private right come from however? Locke reasons that “consent from all mankind” to claim property is ridiculous, but perhaps when God gave humans the land, he meant for the fruits of their labor to be shared publicly. Perhaps this does not entail getting permission from all humankind, but instead ensuring that all humans in one’s immediate vicinity are properly cared for and not excluded, which then lets permission fall upon the individual. Perhaps this is the private property Locke and George speak of.
Locke gets into this when he describes how his principle of “picking up whatever is being unused” is ethically based on the fact that there is enough land to go around. He does not, however, explore what happens when there is not enough land to go around, as that was not an issue during his time. It is plausible that private property rights may cease completely under God once it cannot be distributed equally, as that would be unfair, and no human is superior to the next.
Even before all land becomes unable to equitably distribute, God-given property rights may have to cease if one were to weigh harm against benefit. At a certain point, turning a parcel of land into agriculture may produce more suffering globally than the benefit it has to a particular group of humans. At that point, one needs to morally question what should be prioritized, human pleasure, animal pleasure, all living pleasure, or nature as a whole?
Lastly, they seem to believe that the rules in which state private ownership of land and monetary trading of land are justified systems that all humans must abide by. Locke asserts trade as a form of use, and that when this is combined with the monetary system, it allows human to accumulate more than they could individually benefit from at one point in time. This seems like an over-extension of God’s principles, however, as God didn’t endorse money and private accumulation of it. One may argue that even if a human can trade land for money, if the human does not spend the money soon, then the money is not serving them benefit, and they should get rid of it. If private accumulation and the monetary system were a divine commandment, God would be a capitalist. Finally, Locke’s argument falls flat when acknowledging that not all humans, particularly those being born, agreed to monetary systems or state private ownership. So, although an Englishman may not be able to claim French land, a random nomad should be able to. When reading Locke and George’s texts, it is pertinent to recognize that not everyone agrees to human-made systems, or even seemingly basic assumptions like belief in God or human prevalence over nature.
The question of value is an important one. I’m glad you made that the focus of this post (and it *was* the somewhat arbitrary focus of this week’s readings too). You’re very correct that the value of things is, first and foremost in these readings, determined by its value to human beings. That value can also take different forms, meaning that it can be measured by the labor that went into producing the thing, the usability of the thing (use-value), the value of the thing on the market, the value of thing to one’s intangible measures (emotional, spiritual, etc.) So, really, wine is only more valuable than water if water is in great supply and wine is not, if the entity making the valuation likes wine or not, etc. But since we all have to live on the earth (so far!), it does stand to reason that the earth itself is valuable, whether we agree on the proper measurement of that value or not. So, as you point out, as we watch the glaciers melt and our waters rise, our trees disappear and our deserts expand, the question of ownership in land becomes not one of engrossment or accumulation, but one of survival. While George is not prefiguring climate crisis, this is actually part of his argument — which is to say that land is NOT limitless and privatization of land robs people of their right to live with/on/from the earth. Contrary to your first reading of George, I think you might find a more charitable one if you read him again with this in mind.