John Locke

Overview

John Locke (1632–1704) supplied the property theory the land debate still runs on: ownership originates in mixing one's labor with unowned nature — but subject to the Lockean proviso that appropriation leave "enough, and as good, left in common for others" (Second Treatise, Ch. V).[1] Georgists read the proviso as conceding their case: in a settled country no land appropriation leaves "enough and as good," so exclusive land ownership requires compensating the excluded — which is what land value taxation does (land as commons; the moral argument). Libertarian critics read Locke the other way, as grounding absolute property; the geolibertarian position is precisely the attempt to honor both halves — full property in labor's products, conditional tenure in land. Locke is also an ATCOR ancestor: Harrison's Ricardo's Law cites Locke (1691) for the observation that taxes ultimately settle on land.[2]

Book Findings

Banner: Locke's Property Theory Applied to Colonial Land Acquisition

Stuart Banner's How the Indians Lost Their Land (2005) documents how Lockean property theory was applied — and stretched — to justify colonial land acquisition from American Indians. Banner traces the legal reasoning by which English colonists initially recognized Indian land ownership, then progressively narrowed it, using Locke's labor-mixing argument as a conceptual tool. (D-claim; interpretive)

Banner documents that early colonial figures invoked principles consistent with the Lockean proviso. Increase Mather and William Penn referred to Indians as "Native Proprietors" or "Owners" of North America (Banner 2005, p. 23). An early governor of New Haven declared Indians "were the true proprietours of the land (for we found it not a vacuum)" (Banner 2005, p. 23). This initial recognition — that Indian occupancy constituted ownership, not mere use — was consistent with Locke's premise that mixing labor with land creates property. (A-claim; factual)

However, as colonial power grew, the Lockean framework was turned against Indian claims. The shift from ownership to occupancy — codified in Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) — effectively argued that Indian use of land did not constitute the kind of "improvement" Locke's theory required for full property. Indians had not "mixed their labor" in the European agricultural sense, so their rights were reduced to use-rights, not ownership. Banner notes that this redefinition allowed Anglo-Americans to "sincerely believe… that they were not conquerors, because they believed they were buying land from the Indians in the same way they bought land from each other" (Banner 2005, Introduction). (D-claim; interpretive)

This historical case illustrates a tension in Locke's theory that Georgists have highlighted: the labor-mixing argument can ground property claims, but the proviso ("enough, and as good") can also limit them. When the proviso is ignored — when there is no longer "enough and as good" left for others — Locke's own framework points toward compensation for the excluded, which is precisely the Georgist argument for land value taxation. Banner's documentation of how colonial law selectively applied Locke's theory shows the proviso being discarded in practice. (D-claim; interpretive)

"The Indians had property just as much as the settlers did; they just organized it differently." (Banner 2005, Introduction)

See: How the Indians Lost Their Land (Banner)

See Also

• Johnson V Mcintosh — the case that turned 'discovery' into title over Native land
• Land as Commons · Geolibertarianism
• Narrative: The Community Creates Land Value
• ATCOR — the fiscal descendant of Locke's 1691 observation
• How the Indians Lost Their Land (Banner) — Locke's property theory in colonial context

Sources

1. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1689), Ch. V "Of Property" — used for the labor theory and the proviso (A-claims; quote ≤50 words). Full text
2. Fred Harrison, Ricardo's Law (2006), p. 446 (citing Locke 1691, Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest) — used for the taxes-settle-on-land lineage (A-claim with locator; Heavy scan). Book page
3. Stuart Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier (Harvard University Press, 2005) — used for the application of Lockean property theory to colonial land acquisition (A/D-claims). Book page