The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the foremost document of its kind. When it was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, it was the first international standard for human rights. It enshrined the idea of universality, which proclaims that every individual has innate rights that must be protected by and from various institutions that are both private and public in nature. However, while the UDHR is a significant accomplishment, it is very much a product of its post-WWII era. The Cold War was in its early stages and the need to protect the ideals of Western capitalism against the various strains of socialism and communism was paramount. Furthermore, the process of formal decolonization had just begun; governments representing formally colonized peoples were just beginning to have a modicum of power within the newly formed United Nations (UN). This historical context is arguably of the utmost importance when considering the contents of the UDHR: Western countries, who were formative in the creation of the UN and its mission, were interested in upholding settler-colonialism and capitalism in order to protect their economic and political interests which were threatened by decolonization and the rise in anti-capitalist ideology. Nowhere is this more evident than in Article 17 which states: “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.” Private property is arguably antithetical to the human rights project as not only is it inherently exclusionary, it explicitly violates the rights of Indigenous peoples and creates the basis for extractive relationships with the land that are ultimately harmful.
What is Property?
It should be noted that the contemporary understanding of property is rooted in the microcosm of Western philosophy. The West’s conceptualization of property deliberately occludes the reciprocal relationship to land that is an inherent part of Indigenous beliefs and customs. Property, as is currently understood, is a fairly general term- it typically connotes ownership over something tangible or intangible. For the purposes of this article, property will be used to refer to land and its material resources. Private property specifically refers to a “system that allocates particular objects, like pieces of land, to particular individuals to use and manage as they please, to the exclusion of others and to the exclusion of any detail controlled by society.” It is worth mentioning that private ownership in Western countries does not directly translate to total ownership over the land; it typically entails rights to the land. However, these rights still have extensive consequences. Ownerships may entail the following: exclusion of others, renting, leasing, or selling land, and the decision to use or not to use it. Private property also does not exist in isolation; its existence still depends on public justification; without the acknowledgment of public institutions, it would be difficult to enforce laws pertaining to private property rights.
While private property is currently the predominant system, it is not the only iteration of property that has been implemented. Common property is used to govern resources that are available to all; any sort of restriction on its use is meant to guarantee fair access to everyone. This idea of common property is deliberately meant to prevent any sort of exclusion. In a similar vein, collective property is where the whole community determines how important resources are to be utilized; such determinations are based on social interest and are meant to ensure the well-being of the community. While common and collective property differ in their specific mechanisms, they are both rooted in democratic processes that consider the interests of the community rather than the individual.
The History of Private Property: How Did We Get Here?
Early agricultural societies “concentrated” the relationship between land and people as farming necessitated permanent settlements thus meaning that communities had to directly invest in the care and maintenance of the land. However, property was not seen as a private entity that is used to extract natural resources and accumulate capital; these early settlements cultivated intimate relationships to the land. In many Western cultural contexts, the land was seen as a “sacred mother.” The idea of land being utilized as a source of wealth and power simultaneously arose with the emergence of the nobility, who pushed for greater legal recognition of their land rights. Given this general overview, it is important to consider its particular evolution as a philosophical concept. Ancient philosophers in the Hellenistic tradition speculated on the relationship between property and virtue. Plato espoused the idea that collective ownership promoted common pursuit of the common interest; he believed that organizing property in a collective manner would prevent social division. Aristotle was in direct opposition with this idea- he suggested and defended the idea that private ownership would help cultivate virtues such as “prudence and responsibility.” Additionally, Aristotle’s ideas would lay the foundation for the notion that private property has an inherent relationship to liberty and freedom. This supposed relationship between private property and freedom was very much a product of Aristotle’s historical circumstances: freedom was defined in contrast with slavery. In other words, to be free meant that one exercised ownership, while the opposite was natural enslavement. In the Medieval period that followed, Thomas Aquinas believed that virtue and property have a relationship. Yet Aquinas further argued that the rich have a moral obligation to be generous with their wealth, while the poor have rights against the rich. While Aquinas’ approach to private property differs from typical attitudes, it can arguably be seen throughout strains of “progressive” approaches to property, albeit they still operate within the framework of capitalism.
The early modern period, which includes the Enlightenment, is where one begins to see the inception of contemporary notions of private property. While Hobbes and Hume promoted the idea that property is the creation of the state, it was Locke who formulated the most widely-accepted ideas related to private property. Whereas Hobbes and Hume believed that private property existed solely within the context of a sovereign state, Locke propagated the idea that property could also exist in a state of nature without any political decisions cementing its conception. Locke essentially believed that private property is a naturally occurring phenomenon and due to its existence within nature, it stands to further reason that to claim ownership over it is an inherent right- thus one can clearly recognize the lineage of Article 17 in the UDHR. Furthermore, Locke did not adhere to the idea of universal consent; unlike common or collective property, which emphasizes democratic procedures, Lockesian private property defends the idea of “unilateral appropriation.” Additionally, it was important to Locke that land be used in a productive manner; considering that he did not believe that Indigenous or nomadic peoples could be regarded as owners in this capacity, one can assume that “productive” relates to industry.
A Rebuttal Against Locke’s Private Property
Firstly, it should be noted that, by definition, private property is exclusionary. This is harmful for multiple reasons. The dividing of land between individual actors for private control inevitably produces a barrier to accessing resources. Privatization of land often leads to the privatization of natural resources on said land thus turning them into commodities to be bought and sold. The specific issue is that some within the proverbial “community,” though this occurs on both a local and global scale, are not able to afford the commodification of these resources. The exclusivity of resources inherently produces inequality- some will be able to access these resources through a monetary exchange, while (many) others will struggle. Furthermore, turning land into an exclusive entity, i.e. property, creates a distorted mainstream relationship to nature. The parcelling up and division of land eclipses the idea that we can have a reciprocal relationship where the land takes care of us and we take care of the land. Instead it becomes another object where its primary purpose is to extract natural resources and produce commodities.
The justification for exclusionary practices is that people are “better off” when resources are governed by a private entity. It is believed that under private property, resources can be utilized to satisfy a greater set of needs than under any alternative system, such as common or collective property. This is commonly referred to as the “Tragedy of the Commons,” an idea proposed by Garret Hardin. However, the “Tragedy of the Commons” is arguably more of a personal projection on Hardin’s part than it is an accurate reflection of reality as it operates on the basis that everyone is motivated by personal greed or self-interest. The problem with this position is that the privatization of resources has not been able to satisfy “the greater set of needs;” in fact, 72 percent of people currently do not have access to the resources they need. Additionally, the “Tragedy of the Commons” completely ignores the Indigenous ways of life which ensure that resources are respected and well-distributed to satisfy everyone’s needs. Ultimately, the exclusionary nature of private property is antithetical to the human rights project, especially as it contradicts other articles within the UDHR. For example, Article 3 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” Yet if we operate under the supremacy of private property, how can everyone fulfill their right to life and security when marginalized cannot access the necessary resources to survive? How can Indigenous peoples fulfill their right to life when their land has been divided for capitalist modes of production?
Lockesian private property is arguably another tool for settler-colonialism which is defined as “an ongoing system of power that perpetuates the genocide and repression of indigenous peoples and cultures.” Firstly, Locke’s idea that land should be unilaterally appropriated is explicit support for colonialism. Not only does it undermine basic democratic governance over land, it violates the sovereignty of Indigenous nations as it condones the violent seizure of land by settlers. This violence is not only wrought upon Indigenous peoples, but also on the land itself which is exemplified by contemporary ecological degradation. Secondly, Locke’s concept of productivity is an unimaginative way of life that is very much rooted in racism. Locke argued that land must be cultivated to be productive i.e. it had to conform to a sedentary agricultural standard to be legitimate; he voiced his doubts that Indigenous peoples could be regarded as owners since his definition of productivity is related to industry. Productivity in Lockesian terms denigrates Indigenous ways of life. However, it should also be noted that something does not have to be productive to be useful. The land is useful, not because of Western notions of productivity, but because it is the land: it is abundant in life, including human life.
A New Approach?
Private property is contradictory to human rights: it perpetuates settler-colonialism and is part of exclusionary economic practices. It is necessary to reorient ourselves and implement an approach that respects the land, especially in the face of worsening ecological conditions and climate change, and its people. Common and collective property models are worth considering, however it is always possible to conceive of new ideas, new paths, and new futures. In order to create a new world free of settler-colonialism and exploitative economic models, we should look to Indigenous communities. Indigenous beliefs are diverse, however there seems to be a common theme: life is sacred and must be protected. It is important to cultivate a relationship with the land that is based on reciprocity and respect. The land can sustain us and we can sustain it. The needs of both must be met; abundance must be shared between both.