- Member for
- 2 years 4 months
I am really impressed with the dialogue here on this issue, I know that it is a thorny topic with many sides to consider in many different ways. The politics of property are really complicated; eg, how is property performed, how is private property situated when compared to commons property, is it right to take commons property if I leave as much and as good for everyone else?
It strikes me that an important factor of private property is in this performance, it strikes me that what I do with the property is less important than what I prevent others from doing. So, when I see gates on land that is part of a timber lease, I object 100% as the company is performing the land as their own, and it isn’t. Theorist David Harvey calls this sort of grab “Accumulation by Dispossession” as in, building up capital by taking it from others (common property).
If there is a country with 100 people, and on average they all value their share of the forest at 10 dollars each, and then the government representive sells the forest for 5 dollars, is it fair, is it just? Does the person who paid 5 dollars for the forest while knowing that it was valued at 1000 really get to own it in the same way that someone who paid market value gets to own a house?
In terms of land gifting, its again, a weird thing. On one hand, an enterprise has been using the land for a long while, be that timber companies, or golf courses (oak bay), the entirety of the Uplands etc. The individuals operating today have had nothing to do with the original and suuuuuuuuuper shady dealings that lead to the gifting. And on the other hand, the lands were indeed gifted, unfairly from the ownership of the commons to wealthy private individuals, should they be made to buy it again now, or have it taken from them?
Frankly, I tend to say down with the gates, but privately I am going to just turn around and go back because I am scared that I will get in trouble for it.