There were fewer clashes over those commons simply becuase there were
fewer people, populations being kept in check by such things as the
Black Death.
Society has always decided how many of the bundle of sticks is actually
yours to do with as you please, and of course tried to mediate between
different neighbors's views of where my bundle ends and yours begins.
But no-where is there any legal support for the idea that your "right" to
do with your property as you please trumps my right to quiet use and
enjoyment of my own. In short, your right to swing your fist stops at my
nose.
The impacts of land use are felt beyond the bounds of the parcel actually
used; people may have known that intuitively for a while, but maybe it
didn't matter in a relatively uncrowded world. Now we do know it, and it
does matter, and so the burden of proof is shifting onto the proponent of
use to show that his activity will not impair my quiet use and
enjoyment. And that is where the burden should be: not on me, who is
after all only seeking to live in peace and harmony, but on the person
who will potentially disrupt my ability to do so.
Public resources belong to us all, and our rights to them have not been
extinguished. That is also a property right. No-one owns the fish, the
wildlife, the water exclusively, such that he can "take" my property
right away. How much impact is considered a take in this sense? Well,
our laws say, for instance, the loss of species. the loss of water
quality. The loss of water quantity as a component of water quality.
This is the discussion point these days. Not, the triumph of property
rights, but whose property rights. And then we get right back into
issues of social justice, which is where the colonialists started. Do we
all lose our public property for the benefit of the (usually already
wealthy) few?
Read William Kitteredge's "Owning it All." I'll post my favorite quote
from it tomorrow.
Cheers,
Lisa
lomb7741@uidaho.edu