Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our land

[zasterguava]

...Or more precisely the limited democratic framework of Britain and the USA to allow for public struggle and protest to force the state to
- protect public land
- limit the destruction of land for private interest
- subsequently protecting the enviroment
- subsequently securing our fundamental rights as citizens to have access to the most treasured of lands and not to be in the hands of a select few.

Shame on those who wish to strip us of our rights and hand over our freedoms to the unobligated clutching hands of private power and fat-cats!

Anarchism would surely secure the equality and liberty of citizens to roam and explore ones country ("the land is indispensable to our existence, -- consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible of appropriation; but land is much scarcer than the other elements, therefore its use must be regulated, not for the profit of a few, but in the interest and for the security of all. In a word, equality of rights is proved by equality of needs."-Proudhon); but within our realistic reach there's still a lot we can do within the system to protect our land. Here are some examples of victories of public struggle and the subsequent actions of the state concerning land ownership and its implications:


[ QUOTE ]

-pre- 2007 50% of the entire British coastline was closed to public access until.... 'Right to roam' England's beaches
-Allemansrätt (Legal Right of Access to Private Land in Sweden)
-Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
- In USA:
-Judge Halts Oil and Gas Development in Proposed Colorado Wilderness
Ruling protects wilderness qualities and rare plants from harmful drilling

-Whipsnake Retains Critical Habitat, For Now
Courts rule in favor of preserving, for now, more than 400,000 acres of San Francisco East Bay grasslands

-Shell-Shocked in the Arctic
An appeals court rules that Shell Offshore, Inc., must stay away from the Beaufort Sea at least through the winter of '07/08.

-Utah Counties Can't Run Over National Parks
You don't own parts of our national parks just because you say so.

-Relief for Lake Okeechobee Is on the Way
A federal judge rules that using Lake O as a polluted water reservoir is illegal without a federal permit.

-Ghost Fleet Will Stay Put
A plan to export obsolete military ships to England for scrapping is stopped.

-Florida Coal Plan Is Nixed
The Florida Public Service Commission refuses to approve a permit for a huge new coal-fired power plant near the Everglades.

-Smog Slapdown Turndown Is Upheld
An industry attempt to overturn tough ozone regulations is rejected by the DC Court of Appeals.

-Supreme Court Rules Against Administration in Warming Case
The high court says that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that EPA has authority to regulate tailpipe emissions.

-Judge Suspends Five Mine Permits
A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that the practice of dumping the rubble into streams from blown up mountaintops violates the Clean Water Act.

-Court Rebukes Administration for Misrepresenting Scientists
To justify an increase in logging on steep slopes in the Northwest, the Forest Service ignored advice from leading scientists including some from the Fish and Wildlife Service.

-Unanimous Ruling Goes Against Duke Power
Supreme Court rules that power plant expansion requires upgraded pollution controls.

-A Win for Forest Wildlife and the Public
An attempt by the Bush administration to remove wildlife protection and exclude the public from forest-management decisions is rejected.

-Klamath Salmon to Get Vital Water
An attempt by irrigators to overturn minimum flows for salmon is rejected.

-Protecting the "Heart of California" from Urban Development
The primary zone of the California Delta is truly the heart of the state. This western watershed for the Sierra Nevada mountains is home to a multitude of wildlife and family farms, it also provides drinking water to millions of Californians. A recent proposal to allow 162 units of housing within this zone at Clarksburg was successfully challenged by Earthjustice and a coalition of local residents.

-Lake Won't Be Obliterated by Waste
Pristine Alaskan lake won't be used to dump toxic mining waste.

-Protecting People from Brick Kiln Emissions
Brick and clay manufacturers produce some of the worst air pollution in our nation. Now the EPA must follow the law and make this industry clean up its act.

Proposed Wilderness Area to Regain Peace and Quiet
Palisades Wilderness Study Area protected from ten-fold increase in recreational helicopter skiing


-Polluting Lake Okeechobee Declared Illegal
Water district must comply with the Clean Water Act before dumping into this drinking water source.

- more here

[/ QUOTE ]

Dare I end this with the appropriate words of the great Woody Guthrie? You bet!:

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me

I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me

The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me

As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.

[Chips Ahoy]

More examples!

[ QUOTE ]
The law allows the industry to claim and mine minerals on the public’s land at rock-bottom rates. A patenting provision transfers the land itself for the 1872 price—$2.50 to $5 an acre (this provision is presently under a moratorium). No royalties are required on the ore mined, which can include (in Nevada) copper, silver, and gold and (in other states) platinum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mining executives use a "rape and run" strategy. They defer environmental cleanup until after the mine is tapped out. Then they declare bankruptcy and walk away, leaving the state with the bill.
No property owner other than the government would ever stand for having somebody come on to their land, take a fortune, and leave a mess behind. Go democracy!

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
More examples!

[ QUOTE ]
The law allows the industry to claim and mine minerals on the public’s land at rock-bottom rates. A patenting provision transfers the land itself for the 1872 price—$2.50 to $5 an acre (this provision is presently under a moratorium). No royalties are required on the ore mined, which can include (in Nevada) copper, silver, and gold and (in other states) platinum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mining executives use a "rape and run" strategy. They defer environmental cleanup until after the mine is tapped out. Then they declare bankruptcy and walk away, leaving the state with the bill.
No property owner other than the government would ever stand for having somebody come on to their land, take a fortune, and leave a mess behind. Go democracy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and George Bush tried to get roads built over protected forests - but was denied due to protests from publicly funded organisations.

The state is as guilty as private power (they go hand in hand). However, popular protest and struggle, as with most things (civil rights, feminism...), forces the state to take some action. Thus one can be thankful such an apparatus exists, unlike in doctrines such as ACism. As I noted the statist approach is not the optimum, but, it's currently the only viable option and as such one can be thankful it exists as opposed some alternatives.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
No property owner other than the government would ever stand for having somebody come on to their land, take a fortune, and leave a mess behind. Go democracy!

[/ QUOTE ]
Eh? How about the powerless & the poor? The cowardly? Natives & the uninformed? The coerced, or those who willingly sign agreements they didn't understand? People whose children are kidnapped when they start litigation? There are a million ways for business to distort fair outcomes in the interests of profit, and to me these things seem far easier to achieve without a government and the universal rule of law.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No property owner other than the government would ever stand for having somebody come on to their land, take a fortune, and leave a mess behind. Go democracy!

[/ QUOTE ]
Eh? How about the powerless & the poor? The cowardly? Natives & the uninformed? The coerced, or those who willingly sign agreements they didn't understand? People whose children are kidnapped when they start litigation? There are a million ways for business to distort fair outcomes in the interests of profit, and to me these things seem far easier to achieve without a government and the universal rule of law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you agree that if a corporation has control of a politician that it becomes much easier for them to get their way? Also, we're talking about the basic premise of AC, private property. Have you read any of the literature and discussion on this topic, or just chose to ignore them.

[Paragon]

(I am an ACist, but have a soft spot for the environment.)

I agree with your bolded quote aiming for equality of rights, but how can regulation even approach this? The default AC position of unfettered property rights is the system that captures that ideal the most, since it is universal and objective. I'm assuming you disagree obviously, but I think that only leaves a few murky possibilities.

First of all, it means you do not believe individuals have the right to own land in the true sense of the phrase. I'm doubting you mean that land cannot be owned though. My guess is you'd want restrictions to exist in how people could treat their land. This is where the state is invoked. But now you have inequality... You have an exclusive class of people that monopolize land regulation, which is composed of individuals who follow their own personal incentives just like everyone else. And now here is where democracy is invoked as the check against abuse of power. Well, what about global public action, or global democracy? What if the world majority votes that no more trees can be cut down in America? No one would accept this ridiculous outcome. America would claim unrestricted ownership rights over its territory. So, how did America, this entity, acquire the right to have ownership when no individual is capable of this? What is so magical or benevolent about America, or any other country in the world? Can I become a single-person state (maybe start with an island) and then have the right to purchase land and do whatever I please with it? Now we're back to the AC position!

Anyway, I still smile when the state protects the environment, but that is only because it is my preference (it is what I would do if I owned so much land). And to be honest, I sadly have a dim outlook for the environment over the next few decades no matter what system is used.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that if a corporation has control of a politician that it becomes much easier for them to get their way?

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on the corporation and the issue. It's somewhat easier for many, much easier for a few, and not much different for others. In terms of land exploitation under the current system vs land exploitation under all private property, it would be way, way easier for businesses to destroy for a quick profit if certain things were in private hands and regulations didn't exist. I think mining, timber and other activities overseas prove that.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, we're talking about the basic premise of AC, private property.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe we are.
[ QUOTE ]
Have you read any of the literature and discussion on this topic, or just chose to ignore them.

[/ QUOTE ]
My points directly address the issue of environmental protection under a system of private property. I'm pointing out some of the flaws in the idealistic and unquantified AC response: "people look after their own stuff better", which to me is generally true for most classes of goods but a long way from the issues at hand. The market is really, really terrible at taking both a broad and long term view, which is needed for certain things such as environmental protection. I've read AC literature on this topic and I'm unimpressed with both the rigor and the supporting evidence. And the OP's point about being able to petition the government is a valid one.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your questions.

[MidGe]

Do you really think it is god's doing? Dude, your god takes the cake! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think it is god's doing? Dude, your god takes the cake! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, as an atheist I meant it in a metaphorical sense.

[Borodog]

zaster,

Let's examine the alternative to private ownership of valuable natual resources, including land. Common ownership of a valuable resource leads to a tragedy of the commons, as each individual seeks to maximize his personal exploitation of the resource (because people are greedy and evil, as I'm sure you'll agree). In the absence of private ownership then, to avoid this tragedy of the commons, a political elite must seize control of the resource and forceably exclude the majority of people from using it as they wish. In what way is this not "ownership", and in what way is it not exactly the kind of ownership that you fear, that a small group of powerful elite control valuable natural resources including land and exclude the majority of people from access to and use of it? It isn't. In fact, your whole argument rests on the assumption that the political owners will view preservation of lands in their natural state as the best political use of those resources. Frankly, I find such an assumption incredibly politically naive. Politicians will instead lease those lands to whatever powerful interests and for whatever purposes will return the most wealth and political power to themselves. In fact, the one main difference between the private ownership you despise and the public ownership that you praise is that under public ownership, the politicians cannot outright sell public lands and pocket the profits. Hence they have no inceptive beyond the political to preserve the capital value of the land for the future. Contrast this with private owners who must always balance their desire for current income with preserving the capital value of their assets, which is always a market value. The only difference is that state owners have an incentive to plunder at as fast a rate as possible and private owners have an incentive to preserve capital value. The result is that everywhere private property rights are allowed to form, tragedies of the commons are avoided, and everywhere that property rights are not allowed to form, tragedies of the commons or tragedies of political exploitation result. The cases you cite where governments act to "protect" lands are the environment are cases where it is politically expedient to do so in the short term. When the direction of the winds of political expediency shift, as they always do, . . .