Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, July 25, 2011

The Illusion of Private Property

Posted by on Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:13 AM

Recently in the Oregonian...

IMG_20110723_144812-1.jpg
This article exposes the core fiction of private property and the core fact of the commons. Those trees could never be owned by one person. They are shared. The right this old man is clinging to is empty and mean. Indeed, he lives with others in order to sustain this fiction of private ownership—without others, ownership doesn't a have a leg to stand on. The private is socially produced, not the other way around. The beauty of photosynthesis, the wildness of the leaves, the sounds of the breeze-animated branches, the peace of shinrinyoku (forest bathing)—these shared, these common pleasures are primary. Always with capitalism (and why we have to tirelessly criticize this system of social relations), negative externalities are socialized and positive externalities are privatized.

(The story's web version is here, but the update only adds information that's favorable to the old property owner.)

 

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
GlamB0t 1
Is there a joint taped to page 82?
Posted by GlamB0t on July 25, 2011 at 8:14 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 2
Yeah, but God forbid if the tree falls on somebody and injures them, guess who's gonna get sued?
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 25, 2011 at 8:37 AM
3
Oh no, he'll end up with 36 acres of mud!
Posted by suddenlyorcas on July 25, 2011 at 8:38 AM
TVDinner 4
Tree ordinance, anyone?
Posted by TVDinner http:// on July 25, 2011 at 8:44 AM
5
Well, why dont the people who want him to keep the trees up just pay him the value in timber that he would have gotten? That seems fair.
Posted by jj41243 on July 25, 2011 at 8:52 AM
Reutte 6
His land, his call as long as it's within the zoning limits. Otherwise, the people need to buy the land from him.
Posted by Reutte on July 25, 2011 at 8:59 AM
Kinison 7
He's owned the property for decades, filled out all the correct papers, waiting until the summer to do this. How is this an outrage? This man is clearly within his rights to mow down all the trees on his property, even if he sells them, its his right.
Posted by Kinison http://www.holgatehawks.com on July 25, 2011 at 9:28 AM
Max Solomon 8
The sin of property
We do disdain
No one has any right to buy and sell
The earth for private gain
By theft and murder
They took the land
Now everywhere the walls
Rise up at their command.
Posted by Max Solomon on July 25, 2011 at 9:30 AM
seandr 9
In other news, local man without much stuff strongly espouses political philosophy that requires others to give their stuff to him.
Posted by seandr on July 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM
10
Yes seandr, precisely.
Posted by Reader/Poster on July 25, 2011 at 9:39 AM
11
@9 Just what I was thinking. It's funny how those without like to complain about what those with choose to do with their property. Me, I wouldn't cut the trees. But anyone looking to complain about how I use my acreage this coming fall, when I selectively cut, can kiss my ass.
Posted by NateMan on July 25, 2011 at 9:55 AM
12
Besides which, I'm sure no one complains when he pays what have got to be fairly extensive property taxes on that land, and has for years. Now they want him to keep paying yet not get the use out of his own land. Ridiculous.
Posted by NateMan on July 25, 2011 at 9:57 AM
13
Property is a social construct ... but so are laws, rights, justice, a whole slew of lofty stuff.

In this particular case, woodland adds market value to adjacent property. The neighbors have been free riders for years, and they're pissed to have their tickets pulled.
Posted by RonK, Seattle on July 25, 2011 at 11:07 AM
14
Couple of thoughts:

I hate to say it, but it is done all the time in Seattle in the name of "density."

Maybe at 88 years old this is his final big "fuck you" to all of his neighbors.
Posted by Senor Guy on July 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM
15
Charles Muede's refusal to come wash my underwear without compensation is just him hoarding his so-called right to labor for pay.

I expect you others to help in putting him into shackles and permit me to properly chastise him for not washing my underwear.
Posted by I hate hate hate dime-store marxists on July 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM
gttim 16
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
Posted by gttim on July 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM
Dougsf 17
It's a shame to hear of so many trees being felled, but to begrudge the owner from a neighboring property which was also once such a forest and is now your home from which you sue...

I don't know why I'm writing in this crappy psuedo-poetic style, I'm trying to make this as short as possible.
Posted by Dougsf on July 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM
bhowie 18
In other news, Slog commenters sneer and snark at observations beyond their silly, socially constructed conditioning.

Property is theft.
Posted by bhowie on July 25, 2011 at 3:03 PM
19
"They argue cutting the trees would harm the environment and disrupt populations of wild animals living in the area."

Oh, those lazy animals. Those shiftless trees. Why didn't they listen to the Sloggers and major in something practical, like business or engineering? Then they might have been able to get good jobs, buy their own homes, and have a say in their own survival. They really have no one to blame but themselves at this point.
Posted by Portlander on July 25, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy