Locke\'s Second Treatise of Government

Locke's Second Treatise Of Government

Property development is South Florida is a contentious inasmuch as it involves incursions into the Everglades, which are considered as having unique environmental value from which the region, state and country benefit. The state has intervened on behalf of Everglades preservation at various points when local governments sought to develop these lands. This conflict can be resolved using a number of perspectives, but it is interesting to consider the contribution Locke's views in the Second Treatise of Government make to the discussion, since Locke's made significant contributions to modern political philosophy regarding property.

Locke was generally in favor of man being able to expropriate "property in the state of nature" on account of his view that man is entitled to fight for survival just as much as any other species. Where there might be disagreement is with respect to the understanding of survival and in addition with respect to some of the constraints that Locke put on property expropriation.

Some of the constraints Locke appears to have put on property expropriation relate to survival. Locke argued that "one may only appropriate as much as one can use before it spoils." This clause relates to survival in that waste is something that works against survival. In the case of South Florida, the pro-development side would point out that Everglades land is not particularly useful for human survival in its natural state anyway, so development adds more value than the land would if it is left undeveloped. However, Locke would likely argue against wanton expropriation of this land, because the land should remain in a state of nature until man has a good use for that land.

In Locke's time, in the pre-industrialized world, land was almost always used for survival -- farming and hunting. The amount of urban land was insignificant in size. In our time, urban land is extensive, in South Florida in particular. Additionally, the land is not necessarily being used for survival. While Locke would most likely accept draining Everglades land to extent Homestead's farmland, for example, he would most likely balk at non-survival uses such as casinos, or retail development. Such development could easily be condensed into other areas -- there is ample vacant land in South Florida and the density of people and development is relatively low. Locke, not faced with these conditions in his time, did not specifically address this situation. However, another clause in the second treatise does provide further guidance as to Locke's views on the subject, so that we need not speculate as freely as above as to his probable views.

Locke argued that "enough and as good" is another constraint on land expropriation. This clause implies that wasting land is something Locke would not approve of. While he defended the right to property ownership, he seemed to also be arguing that one should make use of property expropriated from nature. If land is taken from nature, then it is not available to others. When we consider that the land should be available to future generations, in addition to those of us alive today, then Locke would certainly question whether or not expropriation for retail or leisure was truly valid. After all, while the owners of the land are beneficiaries, in all likelihood they do not need that money to survive, or even to live well. Thus, in expropriating that land they have deprived others, including future generations, the rightful use of that land, for no discernible gain. This view is exemplified in Section 31 of Chapter V -- "to which I answer -- not so" in reference to one's right to collect fruits of the earthy without limit. Locke in general stood against waste of natural lands, and against taking so much of something that others are deprived of its use. "God gave the world to men in common" is a theme that supports the view that Locke would see property and something that should not be wasted, as waste deprives others. That survival is taken out of the equation tilts the moral balance towards Locke viewing much of the expropriation of land that occurs in South Florida as needless.

There remains the question of spinoff benefits, and this is something that lies at the heart of much debate about land use today. While the proverbial Donald Trump may not need to expropriate that land in order to survive, there are going to be people who work on that land who do support themselves and their families. The landowner is not necessarily the beneficiary of that land's development. On the surface it seems self-evident that if jobs are created that the expropriation should be viewed as acceptable by Locke. However, it is worth considering that there are myriad ways to create jobs. The same development on a piece of vacant land in an area already developed would bring about the same benefits. Unlike in Locke's era, when land was directly connected to survival, modern day job creation often does not rely on development of any specific patch of land (mining industry excepted). Anything done on land in South Florida can be done just about anywhere in the region; expropriation from nature is not necessary. Additionally, even if the development never took place at all, anywhere, there are myriad ways of creating jobs. The development may be a low-hanging fruit that encourages developers and politicians to pursue it, but that does not mean it must be pursued or the future workers on that land will perish.

Thus, the merit of the development depends on its nature. In economics, it is assumed that markets are rational and this assumption often carries through to decisions about property -- as Locke would put it "industrious and rational." In reality, human economic decisions are often anything but rational. The notion of perfect rationality is an assumption used to derive theories, and was never intended to be used outside of that context, but today we see it often misapplied to real world circumstances. Even if there is a high degree of rationality in market decisions, it is accepted that markets are correct in the long run, meaning that not every decision conveys an optimal allocation of resources, but that decisions will in the long run, over the course of years and thousands of decisions, be close to optimal.