The Injustice of Private Property in Land
In Henry George’s Progress and Property, George touches on the definition of property and what is considered property. George views the right to own land as one that humans are not justified to have due to its lack of being created by someone. Land is a natural occurrence, while everything else in the world is not. In “The Injustice of Private Property in Land”, George poses multiple opinions as to why owning land is an injustice to society, but he provokes readers to question the validity of his writings. For example, George writes, “As each person belongs to himself or herself, so labor belongs to the individual when put in concrete form. For this reason, what someone makes or produces belongs to that person — even against the claim of the whole world. It is that person’s property, to use or enjoy, give or exchange, or even destroy. No one else can rightfully claim it” (George). While George does make a great point that property is what is manmade or paid for, this idea of owning what one creates makes me question any exception to this view. One that immediately comes to mind is humans. Humans are literally man made and created by another person, but they are not viewed as property when they are old enough to survive on their own. Yes, children are considered property of their parents, but they are not treated like such.
Furthermore, I question the difference between natural and manmade. One could argue that humans are natural beings and cannot be property, therefor they cannot create it. While George’s personal beliefs are unknown to me, I am sure religion played some role in George’s opinion. If this is the case, why does the idea that humans are God’s creatures and cannot be owned not show in George’s beliefs? This creates the question of whether or not anything can be owned. Is everything on Earth “natural” because the means to create everything are on Earth? While these questions are extreme, they are an equal response to the radical opinions Henry George has.
George’s main argument, although there are many, focuses on the fact that we have no right to own land and that owning land is wrong. His main proof is that property is anything manmade and that only property can be sold or traded. George writes, “It is production that gives the producer the right to exclusive possession and enjoyment. If so, there can be no right to exclusive possession of anything that is not the product of labor. Therefore, private property in land is wrong” (George). George’s argument that land cannot be private because it was not produced by another person is convincing, but the validity of his statement depends on what people define property as. While George view’s it as something one has created and has the rights to, other may argue that property is anything one legally or financially owns. George’s whole argument can be thrown away if a majority of society does not define property is the same way George does.
Another question I had in response to this reading was “what is the solution?”. If George is so adamant that owning land is wrong, how does he propose we fix this? Does everyone get their money back and live on a piece of land for as long as they can? If humans are no longer able to own land, how are people guaranteed to live a peaceful life? George says it himself when he writes, “in a word, ownership of land rests upon conquest” (George). Kings fought wars over land, and who is to say that will not happen again. The dissolution of real estate will result in major turmoil and chaos. This possibility makes it harder to fully support George’s arguments even though they are reasonable.
One of the important points you make here is that George — and Locke and all our Western thinkers for that matter — presume that there is a difference between nature and humans. There is also a presumption, which George does cite from Genesis, that humans exist in a managerial position to nature. So I think it makes great sense to interrogate the idea that human labor creates value where none existed before. After all, value is itself defined by humans and not all humans have the same definitions of value. That said, George is pretty clear that people own themselves, so parents don’t own children, God doesn’t own humans, people cannot own other people. And what is considered manmade, or mixed with the labor of humans, is just that: made by humans. So cherries are not made by humans, but cherry pie is — cherry pies don’t grow on trees. I think George’s solution is pretty clear and that is to take land off the market altogether. He says (I’m making this more contemporary) we can trade houses, cars, cellphones, and even factories, but we can’t buy and sell land. Taking land off the market in his terms means putting it in public trust and having those who build on it pay the public for the privilege of using it. That does require valuation of the land, which maybe challenges George’s premise altogether since land ought to be invaluable. But it does offer a simple solution. Wait until we talk about community land trusts in a few weeks!
I really enjoyed your response on Locke and George, particularly your questioning of what constitutes labor and natural versus manmade components. You made a great feminist critique of the two writers (maybe without even realizing it). As you aptly note, there is a clear distinction between Locke’s nature to be held in common and property—particularly as pertains to human reproduction. Humans are inherently labor from conception to birth to child rearing. This would transfer them into property, as the land, which is tilled. Locke does acknowledge this role of work by parents (19), but the dominion of parents, particularly of the father, over children is a result of their lesser capabilities and is not absolute (20-21).
In doing so, Locke disregards the labor, which is typically done by women by considering it to be part of natural production. He even calls “nature, the common mother of all” (11). This signals his “natural” conception of motherhood. By constricting labor by these gendered norms, he limits what we can consider property to primarily more male-dominated activities. Mother nature bears no property for Locke. This begets the question of what would a feminist reading of Locke recommend? I don’t think this critique leans toward the notion that children should be the property of their parents. One reason would be that land property for Locke is indefinite and, thus, so would human ownership. Rather, it would question how property—and not just land—enforces the gendered notions of ownership and motivate the abolition of property.