humanity questions 1135

Human beings (and many other animals) are territorial - the distinction between "mine" and "yours" is not learned or cultural; it is deeply rooted in our animal instincts. This is what makes the argument from property rights so powerful. Supporters of Capitalism (wise-users among them) believe that all property should be "mine," whereas Socialism (including most environmentalists, in some form or other) think that most property should be "ours." This is a very old and fundamental debate; "Capitalism" and "Socialism" are merely the newest names for the two sides. Modern socialists and anarchists usually agree that "I" am entitled to enough private property for my own personal use (no one wants to share a toothbrush!) but that all excess property should belong to the community (why do I need two houses? for example). And the property I personally need is very little indeed. Any more than that, and I am usurping what others could use: I am getting rich at someone else's expense; I am creating two classes of society, the "haves" and the "have nots." To get to the point: opponents of wise use believe that it is wrong for me to abuse, pollute, destroy or otherwise damage property that should benefit everyone. I can trash my own house, if I like; that's my business; but when I trash the larger environment, that's everyone's business, even if the property laws say that environment is "mine." The "wise use" position is that "mine" is  mine , no limits, no restrictions.

When modern capitalism evolved in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it worked only because new laws defined "property" in new and inventive ways so that the capitalists could be certain of keeping the profits they made in the free market. No entrepreneur would want to start a new business if he could not be certain that it, and any profit it made, were really his. (At least, that was what the capitalists and their partners in the newly centralized governments said.) In earlier ages, philosophers believed that property is temporary; that it is ours only so long as we actually use it (this is called "usufruct" in feudal law). After all, we come into the world with nothing, and we leave it with nothing, so property cannot be "ours" in any permanent sense. Medieval cities and kingdoms actually had laws against charging interest on loans or charging more for a loaf of bread than the poor could afford - because economic wealth was seen as belonging to the community, not to the individual. In fact, the entire Judeao-Christian-Muslim belief system preaches against the use of interest. They call it usury, and it is generally agreed to be greedy and potentially evil. Unfortunately, in the modern era, the Christians (and almost everyone else) seem to have abandoned this law. The Jewish and Islamic communities still adhere to it in varying degrees: the Islamic much more so. These notions of community and mutual benefit changed when the new market economy began to encourage greed and acquisitiveness (which are admittedly natural human traits, but that doesn't mean we have to indulge them. After all, violence is also a natural human trait). So property had to be redefined: it is absolute; it is permanent; it is mine. It can even be abstract (copyrights, interest on investments). It is this view of property - fairly recent, historically - on which the wise-users base their claims.

Socialism, which comes in many shapes and sizes, was a nineteenth-century backlash against this new gospel of greed. So far, it hasn't worked very well (witness the late unlamented USSR) but sometimes it does, in smaller places or smaller ways (Cuba; the British national health care system; American Social Security). In its more radical forms it has scarcely even been tried yet. But Karl Marx, who can be thanked for many of the changes in capitalism itself (they were a response to his observations, enacted by governments who feared a socialist revolution if they didn't do something) can also be thanked for the fact that most of us now believe that, even if private property is OK, we have a social obligation not to use our property in ways that are harmful to the community. The wise users don't agree - they are a minority, but a powerful one. Click on the following link to learn more about Karl Marx.

· Karl Marx

The term "wise use" first appears in the Reagan era, when the administration in Washington always supported the big corporations against the "tree huggers." Essentially the wise-users want us to believe, "hey, we're environmentalists too, we just want to conserve natural resources for future generations." In actuality it amounts to, "hey, we  own  these damn resources, and we won't have any eco-radicals telling us how to use what we own." Anyway, that's the view of most other environmentalists. Go to the web site of the main wise-use organization, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, (link at the bottom of page), and make your own judgment - then talk about it in the forum this week. There's an old maxim that is one of the first questions you learn in law school:  cui bono ? that is, "who benefits?" Look at who funds organizations like CDFE, and consider who benefits if they get their way.

Wise use, in all its manifestations, relies on one legal or constitutional principle: the right to private property. True, this is one of the foundations of Western civilization, and nearly all ideologies - liberal or conservative - take it for granted. (Anarchists and communists do not, nor do many non-Western cultures.) The wise use movement appeals to patriotism to support its case: the right to hold property is a basic American freedom. (Note all the red, white and blue on these websites.) The argument is this: if private property is truly private, then the owner has a right to use (or abuse) it in any way s/he pleases. If the government (or any institution) can interfere, then the property is not truly "private," and the owner is not truly "free." The movement strongly opposes the Endangered Species Act, for example: if the government forbids me to cut down a forest on my land because an endangered owl lives in the trees, then I do not have the property rights or freedoms our ancestors fought and died for.

You need to know two key terms: "eminent domain" and "takings." The first is the government's power to take private property for public use (provided that fair compensation is paid), even if the owner is not willing to sell. This is often how the state acquires land to build new highways, for example. Eminent domain is universally accepted, and is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment: ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Eminent domain derives from medieval English feudal law, and no one seriously questions it. "Takings" is another matter altogether, and the demand that American courts recognize "takings" as a form of property rights is at the crux of the wise-use agenda.

Everyone agrees that the government has a right to take some of my property, in the form of taxes or real estate or whatever. But does it have the right to take property that is only potential, that I have not yet acquired? Consider this case: I own a factory, and the government demands that I install "scrubbers" in my smokestacks to eliminate air pollutants. I must of course pay for the installation; this is all right constitutionally (just as the government may demand that I get and pay for a license if I want to drive a car). But what if the scrubbers reduce my factory's efficiency and output, or require more expensive fuels and upkeep, making it necessary that I raise the price of my product? Then the government's requirement for scrubbers is "takings" because it is taking away future profits, on products not yet manufactured. The wise use movement insists that "takings" are just as unconstitutional as seizing my property for a highway and not paying me for it.

So far the courts have not accepted this argument. But what if they do?

Here's another aspect to think about: The wise use movement is heavily funded by corporations, especially those involved in mining and lumbering. Much of the money they donate goes to "educational materials" for teachers, often given away free. The goal, of course, is to persuade young students (still impressionable, and still formulating their world views) that economic growth and multinational corporations are good for the environment. Compare the message in "Truax" to the message suggested by C. Montgomery Burns' friend "Blinky" (right). "Truax" is a teaching tool for elementary schools created by an organization of wood-flooring manufacturers. Be sure to look at these two documents before posting to the forum (one is the comic book given to kids; the other is the teacher's guide).