(Return to main path )

When I refer to the classical liberal or modern libertarian view of property, I'm thinking of very extensive property rights that include the right to use, to develop, to sell, to rent, to divide, and even to destroy a piece of property. It definitely includes the right to exclude others from using the same property. It also includes the right to transfer the property to others for a price or as a gift or inheritance. And the person who gets the property as a result of the transfer has just as strong a right to it as the person from whom he or she got it. That is what I mean when I refer to an "extensive" property right.

It is pretty clear historically that when John Locke (1632-1704) discussed property in the state of nature, he begins with a limited USE right and goes on to justify a degree of individual control over resources like land. But the rights he advocates are always limited in various ways and do not imply the extensive range of control that classical liberals and modern libertarians advocate. For example, those with property are always obligated to assist the poor out of the surplus they have.

Locke believed that God had originally given the earth to mankind in common. He did not believe that the land was simply there and that no one owned it. It was owned in common by all. This meant that everyone had a basic right to use the land to live and prosper. Incidentally, I think that Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) took the view that the earth was simply there waiting to be occupied and owned.

You aren't going to like this, Dee, but I believe that one useful way to look at classic liberal and modern libertarian property rights is that they constitute a deviation from a larger historical theme that insists that property owners have significant moral obligations to all of society. Their property is only justified if they accept those obligations.

Let me put this differently. Many societies around the world have recognized that the group as a whole has a responsibility for the welfare of the individual. In some peasant societies, for example, the village manages land and ensures that each family has a piece of land to farm. The point is that there is a kind of corporate responsibility for the individual. In return, of course, the individual has certain responsibilities to the group. The classic liberal and modern libertarian view changes all this. It claims that the group has minimal responsibility for the individual and, at the same time, the individual owes less to the group. In its most extreme forms, this view leaves group responsibility to private charity.

I believe that we have gone too far in the liberal direction. Perhaps we should reconsider the possibility that the justification for private property includes certain obligations to those who lack property. Or perhaps we should consider a greater corporate responsibility for the welfare of each individual.