Welcome to Nexus Geoism! Today, I’d like to talk about a fundamental aspect of my philosophy: the different types of land ownership. Geoism, as the name suggests, centres heavily on the earth and land. Therefore, naturally many of the key philosophical questions that arise revolve around land ownership. So, I believe it’s important to define and explain the three distinct types of land ownership I see: Sovereign Land, Personal Land, and Private Property Land.
A Venn Diagram of Land Ownership
Imagine a Venn diagram where the outermost circle represents Sovereign Land. Inside this large circle, you’ll find two smaller circles: Personal Land and Private Property Land. A little bit like a smiley face, but without the mouth. This visualisation is key to understanding how these types of ownership relate to each other, with Sovereign Land surrounding and containing the other two. So, let’s break down each type;
Thanks for reading Nexus’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Personal Land: The Foundation of Ownership
At the core of my belief system is the idea that everyone has a right to Personal Land. This doesn’t necessarily mean every person should own a house, but rather, everyone has a right to the equivalent value of a small plot of land. In practice, this could be expressed through a system like a citizen’s dividend, which in essence functions like Universal Basic Income (UBI), but grounded in the right to land.
So, what exactly is Personal Land? It’s the land you directly live on—your home, your garden, and perhaps a bit extra to support your life. It’s land used to maintain your personal well-being, whether through subsistence or modest economic activity. A fundamental principle here is that you can use your Personal Land to create value, but you need to be present to do so.
For instance, if you have a workshop in your garden where you build chairs to sell, this is Personal Land—because you’re directly working on it. However, if you hire someone to work in that workshop while you go on vacation, and the land continues generating income in your absence, it crosses the line into Private Property Land.
Private Property Land: The Land That Works for You
Private Property Land differs from Personal Land in a crucial way: it’s land that enables you to produce income without your direct involvement. This aligns with the Marxist distinction between personal property (things like your toothbrush, which you personally use) and private property (assets that generate profit).
In other words, Private Property Land is land you own for the purpose of making money, regardless of whether you’re actively working on it. A rental property, farmland leased to others, or a business location managed by employees are all examples of Private Property Land. You’re not tied to the day-to-day operations; the land itself is working for you.
In my view, you do not have a fundamental right to Private Property Land, though it can be legally allowed. This is an important distinction—while everyone should have the right to a personal living space, owning land solely for the purpose of generating profit is not an inherent right. It is something society may permit, but it is not necessary for individual well-being or survival.
John Locke and the Right to Property
When discussing land ownership and rights, it’s essential to consider the philosophy of John Locke, one of the most influential thinkers on property rights. Locke argued that individuals have a natural right to property, which stems from their right to life and the need to sustain that life. For Locke, when a person mixes their labour with a resource (like working the land), they gain ownership over that resource.
However, Locke did not argue for unlimited accumulation of property. This is where the Lockean Proviso comes in. According to Locke, while individuals have a right to property, this right is limited by the condition that “enough and as good” must be left for others. In other words, your right to claim land is valid only if you leave enough for others to also meet their needs.
Locke’s Proviso introduces an important moral constraint on property rights: you cannot hoard land to the detriment of others. In Locke’s view, ownership must always be balanced by ensuring that others can also access the resources necessary for their survival and flourishing. This idea resonates with my distinction between Personal Land and Private Property Land—where personal property is necessary for life, but excessive accumulation (private property) is not an inherent right.
This principle closely aligns with my belief that everyone should have a right to a reasonable amount of personal land, but not to vast tracts of land used solely for profit. Just as Locke insisted that property rights must be limited by the needs of others, I argue that Private Property Land, while allowed, is not a fundamental right. Personal Land, on the other hand, is critical to ensuring that individuals can live fulfilled lives and meet their basic needs.
Sovereign Land: Ownership on Another Level
Now, what about Sovereign Land? This is where things get even more interesting. Sovereign Land refers to the land owned and governed by the state. It surrounds both Personal and Private Property Land. While Personal and Private Property are subject to the laws and rules of a particular sovereign state, Sovereign Land operates under natural rules—rules that reflect how the world functions on a broader, often more brutal scale.
For example, ‘might often makes right’ in the realm of Sovereign Land. While we might not like this, history shows that larger, more powerful states often dominate smaller ones. This harsh reality is something we must respect but not necessarily accept as ideal. The rules governing sovereign territory are dictated by power. Whereas the rules within the Sovereign Land can be based more on morality and logic.
Man-Made Rules vs. Natural Rules
It’s critical to understand that the rules governing Personal Land and Private Property Land are man-made. Societies decide what rules apply to private ownership, how property is distributed, and whether citizens have any inherent right to land. These decisions are not set in stone—they can be debated, adjusted, and changed based on the society’s values and needs.
On the other hand, Sovereign Land operates under more immutable, natural rules—principles like territorial integrity, national defence, and political sovereignty. While we can work within these systems, we cannot easily change them. The reality of geopolitics often dictates how borders are drawn and how land is governed on a macro scale.
This distinction is vital because many people wrongly assume that property rules relating to Personal Land and Private Property Land are natural, rather than constructed. In truth, they are social agreements, open to modification by human decision-making. Understanding this helps clarify why the right to Personal Land can be seen as fundamental, while Private Property Land is a construct of particular economic and political systems.
Conclusion
In conclusion, understanding the three types of land—Personal Land, Private Property Land, and Sovereign Land—is essential for grasping the broader conversation around land ownership and Geoism.
Personal Land is what we live on, what we work on with our own hands, and what we have a fundamental right to.
Private Property Land is a different beast—land used to generate wealth without our direct involvement.
Sovereign Land is the overarching framework, governed by the state and subject to the harsh realities of global politics.
By distinguishing between these categories, we can better navigate debates around land ownership by citizens and states.
Thanks for reading Nexus’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
