I here defend historical entitlement theories of property rights against a popular charge. This is the objection that such theories fail because no convincing account of original appropriation exists. I argue that this argument assumes a certain reading of historical entitlement theory and I spell out an alternative reading against which it misfires. On this reading, the role of acts of original appropriation is not to justify but to individuate people’s holdings. I argue that we can identify which acts count (...) as original appropriation against the background of a general justification for a practice of property rights. On this view, what I will call ‘natural’ acts of original appropriation are acts by which a person begins to satisfy the general conditions for justified ownership. Finally, I offer an interpretation of John Locke's theory of appropriation along these lines and argue that it provides an attractive reading of his view. (shrink)

Lockean approaches to property take it that persons can unilaterally acquire private ownership over hitherto unowned resources. Such natural law accounts of property rights are often thought to be of limited use when dealing with the complexities of natural resource use outside of the paradigm of private ownership of land for agricultural or residential development. The tragedy of the commons has been shown to be anything but an inevitability, and yet Lockeanism seems to demand that even the most robust common (...) property arrangements be converted to privatized units. This often motivates a move away from natural law in the moral analysis of property rights. I argue however that it is not the deontological nature of Lockean principles that are at fault, but rather the manner of their application. Lockean theory often exhibits a bias in favour of private property: assuming that only private property can protect one’s interest in autonomy, and therefore asserting that each individual has a power of private acquisition. Starting with a claim against interference however enables us to mould the appropriate property rights to each individual’s particular interest in autonomy. This sometimes leads to private ownership, but often leads to various forms of commons. (shrink)

Abstract:In this essay I document what I call the “environmental turn” in Locke Scholarship. I present an examination of environmental readings of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government over the last fifty years in order to suggest that the growing number of these interpretations, when taken together, signal an environmental turn in Locke scholarship similar to the widely discussed religious turn. I also argue that environmental readings imply a reassessment of Locke’s conception of the political sphere. Specifically, I argue that (...) this turn implies that Locke has a relational environmental theory of political agency. Instead of supporting an autonomous conception of agency, the Second Treatise suggests human and material relations that fundamentally condition and position the political agent within a network of dependencies and obligations. I conclude the essay by discussing the limits of Locke scholarship in the environmental turn. I suggest that the implications and insights of the environmental turn remain limited because a full account needs to address the specific types of people who are considered political agents by Locke. That is, these authors often assume Locke is discussing all human beings, but as significant critiques developed by feminists and critical race theorists demonstrate, it is unclear if this is the case. Future writings on Locke’s environmental political theory will need to address these literatures in order to fully substantiate their claims. (shrink)

When constructing environmental policies in democratic regimes, there is a need for a theory that can be used not only by academics but also by politicians and activists. So why has the major part of environmental ethics failed to penetrate environmental policy and serve as its rationale? Obviously, there is a gap between the questions that environmental philosophers discuss and the issues that motivate environmental activists. Avner de‐Shalit attempts to bridge this gap by combining tools of political philosophy with questions (...) of environmental ethics and environmental politics. He defends a radical position in relation to both environmental protection and social policies, in order to put forward a political theory, which is not only philosophically sound, but also relevant to the practice of environmental activism. The author argues that several directions in environmental ethics can be at odds with the contemporary political debates surrounding environmental politics. He then goes on to examine the environmental scope of liberalism, communitarianism, participatory democracy, and socialism, and concludes that while elements of liberalism and communitarianism may support environmental protection, it is participatory democracy and a modified version of socialism that are crucial for protecting the environment. (shrink)

Anthropocentrism is "the belief that there is a clear and morally relevant dividing line between humankind and the rest of nature, that humankind is the only principal source of value or meaning in the world" p. 51.

This chapter contains sections titled: Characterizing green political thought Green political thought: a distinctive political ideology? Green political thought and liberalism.

An absolutist concept of property has the power to shape and constrain the public imagination. Libertarian theorists normatively embrace this concept. Yet its influence extends far beyond these proponents, shaping the views of an otherwise diverse array of theorists and activists. This limits the ability of environmentalists, among others, to respond coherently to challenges from property rights advocates in the U.S. I sketch an alternative concept--rooted in practice--that understands private property as necessarily embedded in social and ecological relations, rather than (...) constrained by these relations. I argue that this concept can prefigure a more robust environmentalism. (shrink)