Left-wing anarchists also over-extend democracy, saying that property in a community is whatever the people of that community say it is, regardlss of whether that property is personally produced or landed. Right-wing anarchists say that property in land is limited only by what the landowners (or associations of landowners) can defend. Some even say that private paramilitary “security forces” are somehow different from government. Problems with this can be seen in Central American countries where governments are weak and landlords are strong, and where paramilitary groups “defend the ownership” of the landlords by exterminating “trespassing” natives. One might quibble about whether these landlords have a right to act this way, or a right to that land in the first place. However, once they enjoy a right to behave this way, who’s going to stop them?

Right-wing anarchists interpret Locke’s proviso as saying only that there must be “enough and as good left to others” at the time when a homesteader first takes up land. Well of course there is enough at that time, or else someone else would have taken up that land already. But Locke made it clear that this was not his point by his example of someone laying claim to another’s land that had “already” been taken up, saying this claim was not valid if there was not enough and as good at that time. Clearly, Locke’s proviso remains in force after the homesteading had occurred.

We see an analogy in the example of common courtesy on a bus. A person with packages who gets on a relatively empty bus might spread his packages over other seats. At that time, there were enough seats, and as good, left to others. But as the bus fills, our package-laden rider is expected to stack packages on his lap, or on the floor between his feet, that others may sit.

Yes, a rude and anti-social rider might keep as many seats “as he can defend,” relying on others not wanting to fight about it. This is analogous to right-wing notions that landlords may claim and keep as much land as they can defend.

The most important contribution of George was not to advocate for a land value tax, for such a tax existed under common law (where it was non-monetary “taxing work”) and under early feudalism. Locke explicitly advocated it, as did the French “laissez faire” physiocrats, Godwin, Smith, Penn, Paine, Franklin, Jefferson and many others. Rather, George’s most important contribution was to thoroughly develop the economics of land and to show that land rent measures the difference in value between an already claimed parcel and the best land “left to others.” If the homesteader of good land pays that rent while a new homesteader on marginal land pays no rent, Locke’s proviso is accommodated.

The lure of anarchy is natural meritocracy, evolution. Equal access to land is, therefore, the natural result of the single tax on land (the oldest idea in economics, btw).

Is it just coincidence that equal access to land (meritocracy) and the security of the general peace without government are both accomplished with the same simple mechanism? Who cares? Equality and freedom are the same thing, finally, just mutual respect.