All chapters

Progress and Poverty · Chapter

Private Property in Land Historically Considered explained

This chapter challenges the assumption that private property in land is natural or necessary by examining historical evidence.

What happens

This chapter challenges the assumption that private property in land is natural or necessary by examining historical evidence. It argues that originally, land was universally regarded as common property, with equal rights for all members of a community. Private ownership arose not from justice or contract but from war, conquest, and the manipulation of law and superstition by the powerful. The chapter traces how this usurpation led to inequality and the decline of civilizations like Greece and Rome, and how modern developments, particularly in Great Britain, have further eroded common rights, concentrating land ownership and dispossessing the majority.

Themes in this chapter

  • Land Ownership and Rent

    The chapter provides a historical analysis of how private property in land originated through usurpation and conquest, contrasting it with the original common right to land.

  • Social Justice and Equality

    Highlights the injustice of land concentration, the dispossession of the majority, and the parallel between land monopoly and slavery.

  • Human Progress and Civilization

    Argues that the triumph of private property in land led to the ruin of great civilizations like Greece and Rome, linking land inequality to civilizational decline.

Characters to notice

  • Emile de Laveleye

    Cited as a key authority whose work 'Primitive Property' demonstrates that in all primitive societies land was joint property subject to periodic redistribution.

  • Sir Henry Maine

    Mentioned among the researchers whose investigations into the growth of institutions prove the original common right to land.

  • Tiberius Gracchus

    Quoted for his famous speech to the Romans: 'Men of Rome, you are called the lords of the world, yet have no right to a square foot of its soil!'

  • Voltaire

    Referenced as having styled lawyers 'conservators of ancient barbarism.'

  • Bishop Butler

    Mentioned for his declaration that a civil government without a religious establishment was a chimerical project, used as an analogy to challenge assumptions about land ownership.

Key passages

  • Historically, as ethically, private property in land is robbery. It nowhere springs from contract; it can nowhere be traced to perceptions of justice or expediency; it has everywhere had its birth in war and conquest, and in the selfish use which the cunning have made of superstition and law.

    Private ownership of land is fundamentally unjust and originated not from fair agreements or rational considerations, but from violence, war, and the exploitation of ignorance and legal systems by the powerful.

    This is the central thesis of the chapter, asserting the ethical and historical illegitimacy of private land ownership.

  • The primary and persistent perceptions of mankind are that all have an equal right to land, and the opinion that private property in land is necessary to society is but an offspring of ignorance that cannot look beyond its immediate surroundings—an idea of comparatively modern growth, as artificial and as baseless as that of the right divine of kings.

    Humanity's original and enduring belief is in equal access to land; the notion that private land ownership is essential for society is a recent and unfounded invention, similar to the now-discredited idea of the divine right of kings.

    This statement refutes the common assumption that private property in land is a natural or necessary institution.

  • Men of Rome, you are called the lords of the world, yet have no right to a square foot of its soil! The wild beasts have their dens, but the soldiers of Italy have only water and air!

    Though you are hailed as masters of the world, you own not even a tiny piece of its land; even animals have lairs, but the soldiers of Italy possess nothing but the elements.

    This quote from Tiberius Gracchus is used to illustrate the extreme dispossession of the common people despite nominal national power.

Progress and Poverty — Private Property in Land Historically Considered Explained