That's What I Thought...
columnist: Gene DeNardo

Topic: Collectivism
Closure of the California Parks and Collectivity.

---

State budget cuts may hoist the axe to California parks. What effect does this have on basic Property Rights?

---

by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Friday, June 19, 2009

It appears that Arnie has taken aim at the California Park System and if his recent budget passes, 270 parks will get the axe. While many are decrying the "loss" of this so called "public" land, what is not understood is the importance of this action in interpreting the property rights of Americans.

The word that is consistently used and accepted in this action is "closure". All references to the park refer to "closing" the parks. This is the distinction that is most critical.

A park is defined as an area "set aside", an area used primarily for the enjoyment of people. It doesn't necessarily need to possess its "natural" state, but what comes to mind are usually abundant trees and plants or at least a decent lawn. An idea that contrasts with the "built" environment and offers a "rest" or change from the world of work.

The idea of a park, an area all can enjoy, is one our closest examples of "common" right to property. Common right is the right of all to use land to the extent that they don't infringe on other's right to use the same.

Surely, these 270 California parks are within the realm of "common" property?

The consistent use of the word "close" in describing the possible actions of the California Legislature would tell us otherwise. It is impossible to "close" an area in which all people hold common right to the property. Only that which is held as "exclusive" right, as private property can be closed to others who don't have "title" to ownership.

There is a slim possibility that this "closure" is misunderstood. It would be entirely possible to discontinue the use of "improvements" and allow all to continue to use the park itself. Perhaps, because of costs, landscaping would no longer be attended to, but entrance would not be forbidden or made "unlawful" and parks would remain "open". All would retain common right to park property.

But, this is not likely.

Land used as a park under common property rights would first and foremost simply be land. Since common rights entails equal access of use of land by all, a park would need to be "set aside" from our most common use, that of sustaining ourselves. Plainly, the land would retain common ownership but be set aside from "economical" use by our choice to do so. In the primary sense, we abstain from "homesteading" the land and once scarcity occurred, we would remove the land from the effects of scarcity. In these particular parcels, we would consider "economical" use as infringing on the common right of all to use in a non-economical way. We are attempting to reenact that famous religious story about the Garden. We are preserving "a place to chill"!

With this in mind, improvements should be taken into consideration. Most improvements, by their nature, would be an infringement on the "common" right of all to enjoy the park as "set aside" land. Of course, improvements are not necessarily "wrong", and they may increase the enjoyment of many, but they are not inherent to parklands, and should be decided upon before, not after they are installed, if the land is truly in common right and not State ownership.

Once any improvements are decided upon, it is fairly simple to retain common rights of use. The convenience of the automobile is well respected, but again not inherent in the enjoyment of a common property. A fee could be imposed on each auto, which should be used to fund the improvement, but any surplus must go back to the "owners" of the property, which would be all citizens. Any payment to others, like the State, confirms ownership by the State and the classification of "collective" property. Private property owned by the State is collective property, not common property even though it is often referred to as "public" property.

Any lodging or other developments decided upon can also be accommodated. It might be best if the development grew on the outlying property to retain economical use under "private" property status, but if it was desired to have these services within a specific park; then again all rent would be directed to the common owners, not the State. The concept here is that improvements are decided upon by the common owners, not the State or private interests, and all benefits, including rent, also benefit the same.

Any concept we have of private property, concerns the "right" of exclusive use. Private property owned by individuals or groups is the right to exclusive use by the titled individual or group either self-protected or protected by the collective State. Private property owned by the State is the "collective" forced right of the State to the property. Common property right is the natural right to all land defined by our presence. When scarcity occurs, all forms of property must be protected to exist.

If it comes to pass that the California legislature "closes" 270 parks within the state, what will be of crucial importance is how they are closed. If gates are locked and signs posted to keep all out, it will be clear they lie under collective domain. There will be no doubt if guards are posted. Conversely, if apologies are made for the lack of services, but entrances and exits remain accessible with no threat of punishment for our right to use, then at least the parks have passed a basic test of common property right. This would be both welcome and unexpected.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
2 thumbs so far

©2009 Gene DeNardo, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, June 19, 2009
Last modified: Friday, June 19, 2009

The views expressed in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Gene DeNardo of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.