Both Locke and George seemed to have similar takes on the ideas of the absurdity of private property. Every man has a natural right to survive using the tools and resources granted to us by God. God also bestowed us with reason so that we could make use of our environment. If every man owns himself then he therefore owns his labor and the products of his labor. In this way land is simply the raw materials and our labor is what adds value to it as we produce what’s necessary to sustain life. Land is essentially valueless in that it is only worth something until it’s value has been increased by its joining to one’s labor. For this reason in nature, it is more valuable to have a large population than avast expanses of space.
While Locke asserts that it is fine to take more than one could need so long that everything that is reaped from the environment is used completely before it perishes however, George writes that the production of a product gives exclusive rights of use and enjoyment to the producer and the producer has the right to use the product however they chose, including allowing it to spoil or be destroyed arguing that it wrongs no one else. The idea that you could hoard resources and allow them to go unused simply because you own the labor that produced them seems to be at odds with Locke’s ideas surrounding the natural limits of nature. This limit exists so that we don’t try to gain more than we will use as to let something perishable spoil before it is used is to rob others of the potential use or enjoyment of said product. It was this switch from valuing perishable goods and the use of them to a more tangible, durable form of currency that could not perish that facilitated to beginning of man being able to hoard wealth and grow their possessions, wanting past what nature would allow. This fundamental shift in valuing items and how much wealth one has amassed is the turning point at which in our desire to have more than we need, we foster injustices pertaining to who is allowed to exist where as the rights of others are infringed upon to the benefit of others.
There are some great moments of summary here and maybe a bit of misunderstanding as well. Locke and George fundamentally agree on a couple of things, such as the idea that humans own themselves and their labor. And they both agree to different degrees that property can be privately owned. But Locke is saying that labor mixed with land gives the laborer ownership of the land, and George is saying labor mixed with land may unlock value, but it can’t pave the way for ownership in land. Indeed, George says NO ONE should be able to own the land because it would strip the right of everyone to labor upon it. But people can own what they build upon the land or the produce they derive from it, so property can exist, just not in the land. I also want to clarify that George does not think exclusive ownership of land entitles one to waste or hoard it. In fact, he says the fact that people DO waste and hoard is the reason why there should NOT be ownership in land. Does this make sense? The point you highlight about money I Locke is an important one because, really, once you’ve established a system of currency, you’ve already begun talking about value that is neither earth-bound nor labor-bound. It is value by fiat or agreement only.