In essence, from what I understand, Jefferson’s idea is no radical departure from similar ideas from Locke (e.g. the commons), and yet, it seems that Jefferson is advocating that property is not a natural right (at the very least not one beyond the span of one’s lifetime), which seems radically different from what I thought Lockean property rights to be. (That may also explain why the right to property was left out of the declaration?) I have heard--anecdotally--that at times Jefferson advocated for reallocation of property and so this seems to square with the above concept. (Admittedly, I have not studied this in depth so I may be mistaken here—on all counts).
In essence, my questions: how do his viewpoints on stewardship/usufruct radically depart from both philosophical and common conceptions of property rights in the 18th century? How are his views similar to those conceptions?
(Bonus question if anyone is up for it, perhaps to conclude the above questions: without going too far into an unnecessary discussion on contemporary views, how are our perceptions of Jefferson’s ideas on the above distorted today, esp. in relation to an almost sanctimonious belief in the connection between the founders, modern capitalism, and property rights? If at all.)
Property rights would imply a political entitlement to property, including absentee control of property as well as control over property that has not been homesteaded. Someone who has rights to property does not necessarily need to labor to acquire it, mix their labor with it, or even set foot on it. You purchase rights, which are secured by a state, and access is traded amongst the population.
Use/occupancy over land, which is held in common, would be the traditional anarchist position and tends to be how people organize without coercive power structures to enforce rights and punish squatters, vandals and anyone who might challenge your political claim. This is the very reason that Capitalism relies on coercive power structures. Without a mechanism to keep tenants from disobeying landlords and workers from disobeying bosses, private ownership over the means to produce couldn’t occur. Tenants would simply not pay and workers would simply organize themselves and enjoy their product.
The Lockean proviso states that homesteading is only legitimate up until the point where there is not enough land left in common for others. At that point, no choice could be voluntary for non-owners since they would have no choice but to submit to the political owners of the property.
The land was not produced by labor, therefore nobody’s claim holds more weight than anyone else’s claim, excluding personal use of property, which creates the least amount of scarcity possible. Essentially, your right to control the property leaves with you, unless you want to create systems that point guns at people.
Sorry to not answer it directly, seeing as how I’m no expert on Jefferson, but I do feel that these are important points and I’ll use any opportunity to explain my anarchist leanings.
So, admittedly I am not trained as a legal historian (though I hope to be eventually). Because of this, I don't feel comfortable going in detail into the legal precedent here.
That said, if you're curious about Jefferson's ideas about property, I wrote up a long response about this a while back, here.
Basically, Jefferson's views on property, like most of his other views in life, are complex and debatable. However, I would indeed argue that the sanctimonious belief in the Founders' capitalism is unfounded. The Founders had widely diverging views on property and capitalism, like they did on most issues, and Thomas Jefferson in particular was, at least at some points in his life, downright socialist.