Category: Uncategorized

       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.

John Locke begins his argument in “Of Property” with the idea that God gave the Earth and its fruits in common to men for their use. No one man has a right that excludes or limits the rest of mankind. Yet, before the gifts on nature can be useful or beneficial, there must be a particular man to appropriate them. This “appropriation” occurs when something from the state of nature is mixed with the labor of man. Locke makes clear that one’s labor, and the “works of his hands are strictly his”. The labor removes the land or object from the common state, and establishes the man as its owner. Private property acquired in this manner is not only moral but useful. Therefore, Locke’s premise in this section is quite simple: people have the right to appropriate goods by adding their labor to that good, thus making it their own.

While Locke argues that men have a right to create and enjoy their property, he also argues that there are limits to that right in the state of nature. The first limit is alluded to when he describes how property is created. He says, “Labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough and as good left in common for others.” The implication is that one’s right to property is only clear and exclusive so long as it doesn’t jeopardize anyone else’s ability to create equivalent kinds of property for himself. Secondly, and the subject of a good deal of the chapter, Locke stresses the force of the limitation on property. Man should only obtain as much property “as [he] can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils…Whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others.” The reason for this limit is that “Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy.”

Perhaps most similar to the notion of ownership put forth by Locke can be found in Andro Linklater’s presentation of Reverend John Winthrop’s sermon in “Owning the Earth”. Winthrop put foreword that private ownership of the Earth did not depend upon the law, but was created only through human toil of the land. Moreover, every man had the natural right to occupy empty land, and ultimately grew from God’s injunction in the Book of Genesis to, “Increase & multiply, replenish the Earth & subdue.” Both Locke and Winthrop’s positions stand in stark opposition to the idea of the divine right of kings, and address the then divisive question of did authority lie with the people or with the crown?

The main issue I have with John Locke’s “On Property” is that he is unclear regarding what type of labor is needed to obtain private property. Some kinds of labor are obvious, such as planting crops, but suppose I am raising sheep and need a certain amount of land to feed those sheep. May I claim as my private property all land that I deem necessary for pasturage? Or even today what if I am an environmentalist and want to preserve the environment as is? Can I fence off the area I want to protect? Such questions are difficult to deduce from Locke’s premise (at least in “On Property” alone), and would be addressed by social conventions and governmental rules. These conventions and standards may vary significantly among different cultures, traditions, and societies.

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 readings by John Locke and Henry George both do an outstanding job at framing an argument in which they address the concept of land and property. With John Locke there is a greater stance upon the concept of property, while on the other hand Henry George places greater emphasis on land.

               John Locke’s stance is an interesting one that diverges into a multitude of ideas. However, the one idea that stands at the center of his argument is that of past possession in contrast to his “modern day” possession. He brings up contrast to how in the past possessions were perishable goods and one would own what they needed. If one does over consume or horde the laws of nature would regulate this. “…were forced to seek for their sheer survival – are things that will decay and perish if they are not consumed soon.” (Locke, 17). With the introduction of assigning things value, such as the ide of money, does the nature of over consumption come into play. This is due to the nature of which, by applying a monetary system to things does the natural regulator of a good’s expiration gets negated. Locke places this under a loss in which there is negative connotation towards this change, however I disagree with that. I believe that by adding a monetary system is adding order into the system of owning property. Locke discounts a lot of the benefits in trade and specialization we see in todays modern day brought about by the creation of a monetary system. His argument of how the idea of money being a bad influencer for it allows man to “…take more than he needs.” (Locke, 18) doesn’t address the pros money has brought. Money creates a system in which uniforms a system of trade. It places order into the hand of the participants and places a foundation for measuring the value of what could be in one’s possession. So ultimately, I consider Locke to be correct in stating that money has allowed for over consumption, however, it’s a positive creation for it helped revolutionize trade by creating the foundations of mass markets.

               Henry George’s stance focuses more upon the idea of owning land. George dives deeper into the idea, that Locke opened his writing with, of how labor should define ownership. Where as Locke goes into how money has altered the system of labor producing possession, George dives into how ownership of land produces a negative aspect upon this idea. George argues that landowners who don’t labor upon the land, rather profit from workers of the land are unjust. “one is unjustly enriched – the others are robbed” (George). This is George’s perception of rent, a plain robbery from workers. However, I feel that George dismisses a very important concept that comes with land ownership. That being the control over the land’s utilization. I feel that under George’s idea of should happen to land there is a very blatant problem. That being the disagreement of a community on what should be done with the land. Take for example someone wanting to build an amusement park right next to a quiet neighborhood. The only people who would be able to say anything and stop such a matter would be the legal system, thus if this action is done then the government technically owns, to a degree, the land near the neighborhood. They got to say what can and can’t happen on it. In short, I believe that land ownership is a good thing, in the matter of which it helps funnel the direction of land development.

 

Both John Locke and Henry George agree that labor is the essential ingredient in ownership. Locke describes the process of coming to own property as taking, “something from the state that nature has provided and left it in” and mixing his labor with it, “thus joining it to something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property” (Locke 11). George’s opinion is similar in that “as nature gives only to labor, the exertion of labor in production is the only title to exclusive possession” (The Injustice of Private Property in Land). However, Locke and George disagree about the validity of owning land. Whereas George believes that the idea of private property in the land is “wrong” because humans cannot produce land, Locke contends, “A man owns whatever land he tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the products of. By his labor he as it were fences off that land from all that is held in common” (Locke 12). Central to this disagreement is George’s opinion that “the essential characteristic of the land is that it does not embody labor” (The Injustice of Private Property in Land). This is where I’d like to intervene.

I would like to question if, in fact, land does not embody labor and if it exists “irrespective of human exertion,” as George argues. Both authors are products of their time, therefore unable to foresee the kind of globalized world we live in, which displays such vast inequality between industrialized and undeveloped areas. From a 21st century lens, it is almost harder to extract labor from land to imagine it without than to conceptualize how we could, as George may try, to envision humans producing land, implying a kind of unnatural labor. Today, land is nearly unrecognizable without thinking about our relation to it. Patrick Wolfe, author of “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native” posits that “land is life.” In other words, we cannot exist without it, and as Locke notes, “when God gave the world in common to all mankind, he commanded man to work and man needed to work in order to survive” (Locke 13). Thus, obeying God, man’s relationship to land became the very basis of his own life, which he owns according to both Locke and George. The key here is making the jump from being entitled to hold land in common to privately owning it.

Locke argues that, “No man’s labour could tame or appropriate all the land; no man’s enjoyment could consume more than a small part; so that is was impossible for any man in this way to infringe on the right of another; or acquire a property to the disadvantage of his neighbor” (Locke 14). What Locke is saying is that so long as everyone can acquire only so much property as they have the capacity to use for themselves, privately owned land is not in itself a bad thing. In this scenario, “fencing off” land for oneself is not a detriment to the community because everybody has the opportunity to do so and thrive from it. Here, Locke’s argument connects to George’s assertion that, “All people exist in nature on equal footing and have equal rights,” in that so long as this natural right of equality lends itself to equal opportunity, there is no room for co-opting the commonality of land in a harmful way. I see two snags here. First is that making an argument about “natural rights” becomes moot in a society which has written and unwritten social contracts that have worked and continue to privilege certain identities in socioeconomic life. Second, and interrelated, is Locke’s argument that money, fiat currency, has created lots of problems.

The invention of money, gold as a fiat currency namely, created a system that would take man, “beyond the bounds of his rightful property” because with money, the basis of accumulation was no longer necessarily for use and thus goods could spoil, creating a waste (Locke 17). Money was “a durable thing that men could keep without it spoiling;” men could take more than what was needed to support life and manipulate trade for more than sustenance (Locke 18). It was no longer a mixing of rights and convenience which curbed man’s temptation to labour for than what he could use, but rather a creation of artificial value (Locke 18).

These ideas bring up some final, half-baked, thoughts and questions for me: Was private property a valid concept before the invention and widespread use of money? Will it ever be valid, according to Locke, for as long as money is a dominant tool in trade? What about the role of overpopulation and overdevelopment? Are we far past any redemption of private property in the land given that theoretically there may no longer be enough space for everyone to use only what they would need? Have we “improved” land too much for it to be of use?

Although private property rights are accepted as dogma in Western society, it’s valuable to question how this conclusion arose. Additionally, there is the curiosity of how humans claimed rights to the planet they appeared on millions of years ago, who or what the right came from, and whether ownership is ethical. These topics are excellently explored in the 1760’s book Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone and the 2013 book Owning the Earth by Andro Linklater. Despite the time difference of books’ publication, both authors grapple the same issue of validity and ownership origin. Clearly, property rights are a philosophical and ethical question to be discussed alongside human nature and the wonders of the world; it is not just a modern debate limited to politics and discussions of socialism versus capitalism. The origins of anthropological property (as these documents only discuss human ownership of Earth, not other species’ ownership, which is an equally valid preponderance, as humans are a species like any other) are hypothesized by Blackstone and Linklater, which give insight into interpreting historical documents like Peter Schaheger’s 1626 letter.

 

Blackstone proposes three possible origins: God, nature, and scarcity. First, Blackstone cites Genesis, which states that God gave human “dominion over all the earth.” Blackstone sees this as possible, but not sufficient. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, however, would find this answer completely unsatisfactory, as he’d assert God granting property only reasons if everyone believes in the same God. Otherwise, law is rendered useless. Also, even if humans followed one God, divine commandment would justify public property, not private property.

Blackstone then moves on to discuss human nature in property. Humans find a resource no one else is using, claim it, and then it’s theirs until willing relinquishment. So, once all resources are claimed, do new humans simply have to wait their turn in line? This seems ridiculous, so there should be some partitioning of goods as new humans emerge. Furthermore, Blackstone’s “pick-up theory” is far less applicable in determining when relinquishment occurs. For instance, does death allow property to fall back to the hands of Earth? Blackstone agrees that  “the instant a man ceases to be, he ceases to have any dominion.” This terminates the legitimacy of wills, which are an important tool of capitalism as it encourages saving resources, investment, and wealth hoarding.

Lastly, Blackstone asserts that humans adopted private property of land to ensure their livelihoods when resources were scarce. However, historian Yuval Noah Harari claims in his book Sapiens than agriculture and private land emerged organically as a result of gradual increase in the time spent by natural wheat fields and former generations forgetting the hunter-gatherer way of life. Either way, “both sides agree [ . . . ] that occupancy is the thing by which the title was in fact originally gained.” The discrepancy is on how that occupancy emerged.

 

Author Linklater starts his book on property with a microscope on human living quarters to see how private rooms and property have developed. Linklater heavily discusses engrossment and profit as the leading agent in property rights. By recounting economic incentives that led to feudalism’s fall and how shepherds engrossed land, Linklater paints private property as a product of individual economic interest. Also discussed by Linklater were the feudalism-era, rich landlords influencing government, which is reminiscent of today’s dollar-voting democracy and makes past landlords’ greed believable.

On the subject of God-given property rights, Linklater goes more in depth than Blackstone by citing various religions. Although Christianity bestowed exploitation rights to human, Linklater cites Islam and Judaism, which deny human Earth ownership rights. Thus, leaders like the Babylonian king and Chinese emperors would claim divine authority granted them property rights. However, even if rulers did receive divine property rights, it’s questionable whether rights to own and exploit are transferable to other humans. Perhaps God is a landlord who rented out land to human rulers, but doesn’t allow subletters. Then, the ruler should not be allowed to reap profits from non-divine humans using the land.

 

After reading these thorough texts, documents like Peter Schagher’s 1626 letter to the directors of the West India Company breathe new life. The historical document plainly lays out the state of people in what would become New Netherland, the animal products and harvest aboard the ship, and the purchase of the Island Manhattes, which would later become the U.S.’s most populated metropolitan area. This produces further thought on property rights, monetary profit from land, and right of use to goods produced by land. For instance, did natives have the right to sell land to the colonizers? Blackstone would argue that natives achieved right-to-own by being the first to use it and that the colonizers only justly use the land once it is willingly relinquished by the initial owner. Blackstone and Linklater would agree that some societies believe the natives got permission from God or spirits, such as the indigenous people of Iban, who “offered a lavish sacrifice [ . . . ] to the god of the harvest [ . . . ] who actually possessed the land.” Another issue brought about by Schlagher’s document is the right to profit off land; the natives got the Island Manhattes for free, but then sold it for 60 guilders. Blackstone may assert that the natives should have just “dropped” the land to let colonizers pick it up for free.

 

What’s more, do property rights entail full ownership of the plot of Earth or simply a right to exploit the resources on that plot of Earth? Additionally, does the right to exploit resources include profit rights or merely subsistence rights? If only the latter, then the grains and animal skins aboard the arms of Amsterdam would be unethical. As was claimed at the The Catholic Worker, profiting off of land is unjustifiable. However, all resources stem from land, even human bodies, so then all profiting would be evil. Perhaps even the Iban people would be unethical, as they were taking from God’s land, and even their sacrifices ultimately stemmed from God’s land. In a sense, they had nothing to give, not even their own bodies. Clearly, with property rights, the granter of said right is equally as important as determining the extent of rights.