Wealth in the UCS Series

Usufruct, Dynamically Negotiated, I

By John Taylor; 2009 Sep 08, Masa'il 01, 166 BE

In February of 2003 I wrote an essay for the Badi' Blog called "Dynamically Negotiated Usufruct," in response to a debate in Scotland reported in the press ("Land Reforms in Scotland Give Big Estates the Jitters" by Lizette Alvarez, New York Times, 20 February, 2003). The new Scottish parliament had just passed a controversial law limiting the right of landowners to eject trespassers. This so-called "right to roam" law permitted hikers the freedom to cross private tracts, fields and forests. Owners contended that this law is Marxist and a threat to basic property rights, while others held that this law corrects a centuries-old imbalance where fewer than 400 people own more than half the land in Scotland.

As always happens when factions split into contending sides, both have an impressive set of half-truths to back them up.

On the one hand, property derives from a holy attribute of God, Sovereignty. Without ownership, we could not be sure of control over our means of livelihood. The philosopher John Lock held that protecting this right is why humans formed society in the first place. If a government arbitrarily seizes property, it betrays its reason for being and thereby makes itself an enemy of the people. Influenced by this, the people's convention during the French Revolution wrote the "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man" offering the following definition of ownership,

"Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified." (Article #17)

Since then our idea of property has broadened to include intellectual products, which now constitute the basis of most industries. Rights are understood in a more complex and multi-faceted way. We not only have to worry about arbitrary seizure of property by a tyrannical central authority, Big Brother, but also infringement by anybody at all. Little Brother (tyranny of the many) can copy anything at virtually no cost. Big Sister complicates the picture as well; as equality of the sexes becomes universal we can expect the legal system to change too. Law enforcement may involve more negotiation and networking and become less arbitrary.

On the other hand, the rights of the many can outweigh those of the few. An item of property or a spread of land could never benefit a short-lived mortal more than the public. Everybody potentially benefits from more extensive right to walk or hike where we please. Free access to view the beauty in a landscape is surely a fundamental right that must be protected.

Indeed, now that global warming is making us all environmentalists, we see that the integrity of plants, animals and other natural ecosystems is in our interest. This may sometimes mean subjugating universal human rights to those of other species. By giving the public a right to view land, its beauty and popularity can be used as a reliable indicator as to whether its owner is responsible or not. Seen in this light, the right to roam tends to protect the planet from pollution and other crimes against nature.

On the other hand, the landowners of Scotland complain that the "right to roam" law indemnifies them. Owners of private leisure and sporting clubs worry about the loss of privacy if anybody can wander over, for example, a golf course. A Mr. de Savary was reported as saying that if it is next to impossible to bar someone from his land,

"I'm not sure they can't walk all over the golf course and get hit on the head by a ball and be killed. And the owner of the golf course will be liable."

Liability, safety and privacy are all important, legitimate concerns.

In my 2003 essay, I argued that the root of the problem is a rigid, obsolete and Procrustean concept of property. Exclusive ownership and sole tenure are simplistic and absolutist. They draw an artificial line between public and private, human and natural.

Next time I will look at how the UCS, applying a new technology known as augmented reality, might spread the costs and benefits of ownership among all with a legitimate claim.