Since I linked to Proudhon, I should also point out that communal property advocates must deal with the tragedy of the commons in some way.
As I understand it the British set aside common land for the unlanded for many years. Such land tended to suffer from overgrazing and declining yields, as there was little incentive for an individual to maintain the land. Similarly unregulated open water tends to lead to overfishing. Adding an extra fishing boat provides benefits to the individual fisherman, while the costs of fishery collapse are spread out among the entire fleet.
The problems of maintaining resources and public goods don’t just go away with alternative land tenure arrangements.
Anarchists are not ignorant of the potential problem of the so-called TotC. Suffice to say, “communal property” does not equal “unmanaged”. In fact, the “Commons” part of the TotC is a misnomer, since the traditional English commons were not, in fact, a free-for-all arrangement, but a system of rights and limits. See, for example, the situation in the New Forest. It’s an extension of the principle of usufruct, basically.
The origin of the thread is a rant about from what appears to be a professional student who was using someone else’s property as a personal retreat. He provided no information as to the extent of the farming or what the permit allowed.
We already control logging and this “old growth” argument is a bit of a stretch for 100 year old crops. My guess is that strips of forest were removed per whatever environmental criteria was used to approve the permit. From my aerial observations, such harvesting is done in strips which provide 2 things: the same open space created by natural fires and a natural fire break for access to prevent the surrounding forests from burning down. In a time where CO2 is suppose to destroy the planet this is a good thing. The open space also allows the flora and fauna to return that would naturally populate an area after a fire.
I’m not an expert in such matters, bit it seems to me, taking the problem of people abusing communal property for their own private benifit and calling it ‘the tragedy of the commons’ is a lot like me punching you in the face and calling it ‘the tragedy of your face’ instead of ‘the tragedy of assholes who punch you in the face’
Large portions of the country do not have forestry or indeed land use rules beyond the Federal and relevant state anti-pollution ones. Zoning for rural areas was seen as innovative as late as the 1980s. I am unaware of any land use laws of the zoning sort that affect the parcel of land on whych my home sits – and in fact saw a woods area within sight of our rear deck harvested by clear-cut within the last few years.
I was under the impression that EPA runoff laws were taken into consideration per this ruling. Maybe it was overturned.
Maybe we’re arguing 2 different things but I’m not seeing any deforestation in the United States beyond normal logging techniques. I can’t find any information on either side of the argument to indicate this isn’t true. You’re observation that the track of land behind your house was cut down is a micro example of tree removal and would fall under local zoning laws or the lack thereof. You’re no different then Ted Kennedy not wanting a wind generator in his back yard view.