I told my mother-in-law that my house was her house, and she said, "Get the hell off my property."  ~Joan Rivers

If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.  ~Ludwig von Mises

Personally I don't own a house.  No landed estate for this trope.  And I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever.  Maybe someday through inheritance if I am able to conduct a successful take-down drag-down metaphorically bloody battle with my siblings.  Actually there is a level of high anxiety that comes from the thought of owning property, but that is another story.  Dan K's recent blog Capitalism got me thinking not only about towards what economic forms and system we should aspire, but also about our current paradigms that tend to hold in place or facilitate the growth of the current system in all of its many manifestations.

At the center of these status quo paradigms is the notion of private property, especially that property which consists of the very earth upon which we move and live.  Attempting to shift to an economic system more just, more egalitarian, more sustainable inevitably, and rather quickly, runs up against this behemoth of a perspective about the sanctity of private property.

Much (if not nearly all) of the current economic discussions is focused on the 1% - from those in the financial market to the pharmaceutical industry to the halls of Congress.  This focus is fine on some level, highlighting as it does some of the nastier bits of capitalism and how the socio-political system is manipulated to further undermine the common good.  But this focus on the 1% does tend to miss a fundamental facet of the cultural mindset in America and elsewhere that permeates down through all the classes that make up the 99%.

[T]he recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses.  It has led Individualism entirely astray.  It has made gain, not growth its aim.  So that man thought that the important thing is to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be.  ~Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

The foreclosure crisis has been revived in the news as the Occupy movement has shifted or added to its strategy to include occupying foreclosed homes, returning them if at least momentarily to their owners.  This is a great thing, and I applaud the more constructive tactic for a number of reasons, but that, too, is another story.  The point at the moment is that it highlights the general desire in this country to own one's own home and to a successful satisfaction of this desire is viewed usually in a positive light.

As I have noted at the start, I have always been a renter.  At various times in my life, Significant Others, friends, family and acquaintances have made subtle and not so subtle comments that I should consider becoming a home owner.  I never felt they were thinking less of me because I was a renter (well, for the most part), but there was a clear negative judgment regarding my resistance and refusal to consider becoming a home owner.

"All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety." ~ George Mason

There was of course the financial investment angle.  "Think of the money you are throwing away into the pockets of those landlords.  Buying a home was the key pathway to achieving a semblance of financial security for the future.  (Well, these days I do appear to have been a bit financially savvy for avoiding sinking my money into a house.) But there was also the freedom angle.

I wouldn't have to ask the landlord for permission to paint the walls a different color or to dig up part of the lawn so I could plant a garden.  It would my property to do with as I wished, within reason.  And it is that little cavet of "within reason" where things start to get a little complicated. 

By abolishing private property one takes away the human love of aggression.  ~Sigmund Freud

While I might own my property, I am surrounded by those who own their property as well. Sometimes it just take a few feet of land and a fence to start the cussing, tears and law suits.  Or a few tree branches hanging where they shouldn't be from one perspective.  Or just how loud the music should be, or much is too much barking from the dog, or too much junk in the front lawn.  (And then there are those Neighborhood Associations, with their little regulations about how often one has to mow and what kind of mailbox one can have.)

Beyond the squabbles and out and out fights between neighbors, the community at large may tell one just what within reason actually is.  Working through the various political bodies implementing various regulations and laws, companies are told how and how not it can dispose of toxic chemicals produced at their plant and a land owner can restricted from building on a wetland.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.  On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.  ~Frederic Bastiat

It was this wetland issue that brought the passions of property rights to me back in 1992.  Things began back in 1990 when the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA).  This is the kind of product one hopes to see from our elected leaders, in my opinion.  While it wasn't perfect, it was a sincere attempt to balance economic growth with the need to address social and environmental issues.

In 1990 the Legislature found that “uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals… pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning.” (RCW 36.70A.010) This is the foundation for the Growth Management Act (GMA). 

How could one argue with that.  As they say, the devil is in the details.

Without going into all the details, the GMA handed down one requirement to the cities and counties of the state with which I had a personal experience and which highlights my point:  Designate and protect wetlands.

So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.  ~William Blackstone

In the time shortly after the passage of the GMA, I found myself in Whatcom County, one of the 29 counties along with 218 cities that were mandated to fully plan for growth because they represented the fastest-growing counties and the cities.   

Here are the basic steps that local governments fully planning under the GMA are to follow:

Agree on county-wide planning policies to guide regional issues, for example, public facilities and affordable housing.

Plan for urban growth within the urban growth areas that are adopted by each county, based on forecasts provided by the state Office of Financial Management (OFM).

Adopt comprehensive plans with chapters that fit together.

Identify lands useful for public purposes and essential public facilities, such as airports, educational facilities, and utility and transportation corridors.

Adopt development regulations that carry out GMA comprehensive plans.

In the months that followed the passage of the GMA, the Whatcom County Council carried out their duties in this regard to the GMA requirements, holding hearings and developing a comprehensive plan to manage the growth of the county.

Whatcom County borders Canada along the coast of Puget Sound and is home to Western Washington University in the largest town of Bellingham.  It is primarily rural.  Politically it reflects the Northwest liberal leanings, helped along by the student population at WWU, although beyond Bellingham one finds a more typical rural conservatism.  Obama won the county with 58%, with McCain coming in with 40% of the votes.  In 2004, Whatcom went with Kerry, but in 2000 handed the election to Bush.  In 1992, Whatcom helped put Clinton into the White House.

Also in 1992 the Whatcom County Council was putting the final details of its growth management plan after a multitude of public hearings throughout the county.  It was down to one last hearing.  I was there primarily because I helping a friend videotape all of the city and county council meeting for public access channel (generally a mind numbing endeavor, but I can say I was there on another day when the County Council voted to make it illegal to shoot Sasquatch - one of those personal highlights).  Up to this moment, the hearings had gone along relatively smoothly.  Of course this was about to change.

The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.  ~John Locke

As the hearing was about to begin a huge crowd of rural property owners descended upon the small room, exceeding it capacity.  They were, to put it lightly, outraged that the efforts in the plan to protect wetlands were going to make it impossible for them to make any positive changes to their property and force them to take costly measures to upgrade their land.  Property values would plummet (who wants to buy land one cannot ranch or build a new deck onto the existing house).  The plan was instituting a public taking of their land, and as far as they were concerned, developed in secret behind closed doors by liberal (socialist) officials.

In spite of the fact that there had been nearly a hundred public meetings throughout the county, these folks were convinced this was being jammed down their throats.  Their intent at the meeting was to shut the proceedings down so that the rural property owners could have their voices heard on the matter.  To assist this objective, they had parked all of their pickup trucks next to the building, turned up the volume on their radio to full blast and had someone rev their engines.  On the wikipedia site, it claims Whatcom County “ultimate derives it name from the Lummi word Xwot’qom, meaning ‘noisy waters,’” and at this moment it was quite fitting.  As the saying goes, one couldn’t hear oneself think.

At the time they reminded me of the Earthlings in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy upon hearing the aliens' response to their distress about their planet being obliterated in order to make way for a new construction project:

There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.

What was being witnessed was another phase in corporate interests learning the value of developing a grassroots (or Astroturf) movement to achieve their objectives, in this case a private property rights grassroots movement.  Outside entities had descended upon the rural areas of town and passed out leaflets with exaggerated and false information about the impact of the wetlands and other elements of the GMA plans.  Nonetheless, the Council had to accommodate these citizens, if for any reason than to avoid an outright rebellion.  These folks were tea partiers before there was a tea party.

So the Council cancelled the meeting moved the hearing to a few weeks later, to be held in the Western Washington Campus’ largest lecture hall that could seat over 300 people.  Both the pro-wetlands and anti-wetlands sides worked to get their people to the event, which resulted in not only every seat being filled, but an overflow crowd of over hundred outside.  We were able to get speakers set up outside so those who couldn’t get inside could hear the proceedings.

Inside, it was pretty much divided equally between the two groups, each taking one side or the other.  The council then listened as the two sides alternated sending a person to the lone microphone stand to voice their support of wetlands or their outrage over the public taking of their land.  The various statements were as one might expect.  Passions ran deep on both sides.

As long as our civilization is essentially one of property, of fences, of exclusiveness, it will be mocked by delusions.  ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

The one fellow at the mic that sticks in my mind was from the other side who turned his remarks to us (we were sitting on the left side of the hall) and said we needed to see what was really going on, we needed to turn our radios to Rush Limbaugh and discover what the truth of the matter was.  This got a big laugh from our side, which seemed to really irk him.  Luckily the Council Chair was able to get his remarks re-directed back to the Council or things might have really gotten nasty.  A few others from the other side actually began their remarks with “I am a dittohead and…”

It was obvious from the remarks from the other side, while the arguments were framed within the context of the private property rights, we were dealing with angry white men who saw this attempt to preserve and protect wetlands as just another attack on the white heterosexual patriarchy and its way of life.  A way of life founded upon capitalism and liberty and apple pie.

They were being asked to make an unjust sacrifice, a sacrifice not only in the realm of finances, but also in the realm of fundamental rights.

“No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.” ~John Jay

Within the political blogosphere and other media, the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment is commonly tossed about, especially the last segment: "....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

On those sites and blogs that lean to the Left, this portion of the Fifth Amendment focuses on the rights of individuals in relation to entities dedicated to law enforcement, emphasizing the life and liberty facets.  Among those leaning the other way, this focus goes toward the liberty and property facets of the sentence, touching on topics such as how local governments abuse their power of eminent domain and what is just compensation.

I am not a constitutional law expert by any stretch of the imagination.  Nor do I intend to argue one way or another on these issues as they relate to property.  The point here is simply property is woven into our national psyche in such a manner that making adjustments to our system of economics quickly runs into 99% standing up for the status quo as they seek to protect their ownership of property which they consider theirs in the most truest and purest sense.

“Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race.” William Howard Taft

One might agree that it takes a village, but damn it the village better not tell me what I can and cannot do on or with my property.  Lucky for the corporations and other elite financial entities and individuals, this sentiment benefits them in their pursuit of profits and power to acquire more profits.

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.  From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not anyone have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."  ~Jean Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

We have met the enemy and it is us.  At best the "wetlands crowd" (regardless of their particular issue) can hope for is showing how their objectives are to be embraced from an enlightened self-interest point of view; environmental sustainability or economic justice while requiring sacrifice from a few for the greater good ultimately provides necessary and critical benefits to the sacrificing few.

The following selections were taken from the article "The Birth of the Property Rights Movement" by Steven J. Engle. I provide these not as means to affirm the sentiments, reasonableness and rationality behind them, but as the intellectual barriers which must be overcome if one hopes to seek something beyond capitalism in this country.  They show how the monetary concerns are blended into more abstract beliefs about liberty and justice.

Over the past century, Americans who own property—homeowners, landlords, businesspeople of all kinds, even nonprofit organizations such as churches and charities—have found themselves increasingly entangled in a web of regulatory restrictions that have limited what they can do with their property. Imposed in the name of an amorphous “public interest,” those restrictions have often been unwarranted and severe, resulting in untold personal and financial losses. By century’s end they had led to the birth of the property rights movement and to a call for both legislative and judicial redress.

America's founding principles are grounded in the idea of private property. It is property, after all, that enables individuals and organizations to exercise their other rights and enjoy the liberty that property affords. With the rise of the regulatory state during the progressive Era, however, those rights were increasingly compromised, especially after the Supreme Court upheld restrictive zoning in 1926. That decision opened the door to a host of "permitting" regimes—federal, state, and local—the effect of which has been to tell owners that they can use their property only after they have been authorized to do so by government. That placed immense and often arbitrary power in the hands of government, leaving owners to face a long and expensive series of procedural and substantive hurdles before they could enjoy their property rights. Although the Court has checked some of those restrictions in recent years, owners still bear the brunt of the burden of justifying their rights.

The property rights movement needs to continue to build on its successes. To be effective, however, it must adopt a principled approach. It must reunite America with its common law and constitutional heritage, which affirms that individuals have rights in their property and property in their rights. Finally, it must recognize that the ultimate protection for private property will be found in reducing government to its legitimate functions.

The property rights movement has arisen in response to a growing web of confiscatory governmental regulations.

Across the nation, dozens of grassroots advocacy groups have formed in recent years to defend private property rights from assault by officials at all levels of government. Those groups have arisen because officials have aggressively disregarded property rights and courts have done little to vindicate those rights. Property rights organizations already have achieved some success by persuading the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of almost every state to consider property rights legislation.

The right to own property is essential to individual liberty and is a birthright of every American. That truth did not emerge from the current property rights movement. Nor are its origins as recent as the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Rather, as people who cherish liberty have always understood, property is a natural right of free persons. And, when individuals enjoying such rights freely bargain to coordinate the use or sale of their property rights, they assert their human dignity and enhance their mutual welfare.

Property enables people to satisfy life’s material needs without becoming dependent on the state. Secure property rights provide individuals with the confidence needed to invest their labor and capital in productive activity today, knowing that success will benefit them and their families tomorrow. Private property is thus the vehicle by which individual freedom and the enrichment of society are joined in a virtuous circle to enhance the welfare of all.

The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted among men to secure their rights. And since all rights can be reduced to property, as both Locke and Madison understood, property rights are thus fundamental. Not surprisingly, Madison applied the Lockean insight contained in the Declaration when he wrote: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . .This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

Through the sustaining belief in the rights inherent in the ownership private property, there is a corollary belief in the relationship of between the government (i.e. community at large) and individuals.  Private property rights depend on a view of self autonomy rather than co-interdependence.  The same co-interdependence that provides the foundation of understanding the complex dynamics of our environment and society. 

I might have a lot words today, but I don't have any answers regarding how to facilitate the paradigm shift that would lead to a more just, equitable and sustainable economic system.  I usually find myself coming back to the arts, facilitating awareness and understanding through slanted means. 

That is all for now.  Just a few more quotes to ponder on a lawn, whether it be yours or somebody else's.  Peace.

Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail.  ~Abraham Lincoln

The earth is the general and equal possession of all humanity and therefore cannot be the property of individuals.  ~Leo Tolstoy

My body and spirit are the only things that truly belong to me.  ~Carrie Latet