The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying “This is mine” and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders; how much misery and horror the human race would have been spared if someone had pulled up the stakes and filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: “Beware of listening to this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to everyone and that the earth itself belongs to no one!” – Rousseau
According to philosopher Rousseau, human are fundamentally happy in our state of nature. We each go about pursuing our own self-interests while living peacefully with one another. No man is beholden to any other man; we are all free to use the earth because this earth belongs to all of us. Man’s departure from this peaceful place, man’s fall from grace, was due to private property. Divisions of labor resulting from property ownership required man to adopt institutions of law. This established an authoritative structure which divided people. Because of the need for private property, man is no longer free and equal.
Rousseau’s philosophy never rang true more than on my recent camping trip to Santa Cruz. The trip had started smoothly enough. A friend and I would be driving from Los Angeles to the Red Wood Forest to go backpacking for the week. After stopping in Big Sur for one night, we were just settling in for the next stretch of the drive when I received a call from another friend. She had plans pending in Santa Cruz and asked if we could amend our plans and spend the week camping in Santa Cruz instead. We agreed and decided we would spend the day searching for campsites. The city of Santa Cruz is surrounded by national parks so we expected this to be an easy task. A staff member at REI gave us a handful of suggestions and we set out. However, as we would soon learn, finding a patch of dirt to sleep on is no easy task.
Every park recommended to us was closed due to budget-cuts. We had been planning on backpacking through the Redwoods, so we were extremely prepared. We didn’t require an established campsite with utilities; access to any forest would suffice. However, the State would have none of this. Every park was closed to campers and backpackers. The few campsites that were open and available were overdeveloped and overpriced. Eight hours of driving lead to utter frustration as we realized that we had exhausted all of our options. It was now dark and needing somewhere to sleep for the night, we decided to return to a park we had seen earlier in the day. The park was officially closed for the season, but we wouldn’t be needing any traditional camping amenities so we figured it would be okay. It was not okay. At all. At the crack of dawn a park ranger approached our tent and told us that if we did not leave immediately we would be fined $250 per person. A friend’s friend had rented a spot at an established site so we decided we would join him there.
The site cost $35 per night and included space for two vehicles. The people already there had brought one car, so mine would be the second. The next morning I awoke to a notice on my car that informed me that if I didn’t pay for my vehicle by 9am I would be cited. Rolling out of your tent (after being awoken by the chattering of a jack hammer) only to drive to a ranger station to pay an unwarranted fee is not the most relaxing camping experience. I was further frustrated because I did not understand the origin of this fee since we were allowed two vehicles per site. Well, as the ranger would inform me, the “two vehicles” refer to one car and one camper-trailer/RV. More than one car would be charged an additional fee. Had I been trekking around the country in a motor home I would be off the hook, but my fuel-efficient low-emission Honda Civic requires additional fees. It is policies like these that support the “America” the rest of the world scoffs at.
Attempting to “own” land is the first injustice. Land ownership is largely contingent upon financial wealth, so a system of government which protects private property largely favors those in the top economic bracket. This alone exemplifies the relationship between private property and inequality. The government, by its very nature, is an authoritative structure. With its executive, judicial, and legislative powers, our representative democracy is an entire system of hierarchical powers. While it is intended to reflect the interests of the people, the great irony in our representative democracy is that it actually negates the liberty of these people it is serving. Far from leading to greater equality and freedom, our government structures society in such a way to allow inequality to flourish. The desire for private property had lead to the creation of a system which protects this property, and in this process personal liberty is sacrificed.
Any land that is not owned by an individual is owned by the government, and this brings up the second injustice of private property. State parks are public land. By not allowing me to be in the park, the State is exercising control of the land. But I pay taxes to the States. These taxes go towards supporting programs. I am willing to pay the State taxes because I expect to see the benefits of it. And usually I do. We have clean roads and a functioning education system. However, those same tax dollars also go to the maintenance of public land, so it is only fair that I would get to enjoy this land as well. The government is a structure, but it is a structure representing the interests of the people. If the State owns a park, then by default, I own that park. If we on private property, then we should at least get to enjoy the property that we do pay for- that is, public land. Forbidding one to use the land that one pays for may be a greater threat to liberty than the emergence of private property in the first place.
You bring up a good point about allowing tax-payers to better enjoy what their tax money goes towards, however there are a lot of other issues at play here. The proper use of public goods is often debated and the dilemma is well represented by an example developed by William Forster Lloyd and Garrett Hardin called the “tragedy of the commons.” The idea is that farmers in a small village allow their livestock to graze on both private and public pastures. The farmers regulate the grazing on their private land, but the public pastures are unregulated. As a result, the private pasture is well-maintained but the village greens suffer from overgrazing, and as the livestock multiply on the well-regulated private land, the carrying capacity is soon exceeded and spills into the public land, making the problem worse. With public goods there’s always a problem with free-riders, people who use freely available public goods without paying for them or helping to maintain them. Because state parks are available to all people within the state, and even outside the state, it’s easy for free-riders to use the parks as they please but leave the maintenance of the park to others. In this case the park authorities have to maintain the park, so they have fees for those who want to use it.
Plato also talked a lot about the use of public property, and his arguments have been used a lot in the criticism of communist philosophy. Even if it seems like a restriction of liberty to have private land and restrictions on public land, completely public land is just not feasible because not everyone who uses the land would respect it in the same way and it would quickly deteriorate in value. It’s a sad reality, but it’s a better reality than allowing people to do whatever they want to do. Not everyone who goes to those parks is going to be as nature-friendly as you. People litter and trash areas. Just think what would happen if a group of drunk frat boys showed up at a park to party. When there are no regulations, anything goes, so unless absolutely everyone has the same mindset to respect the land, there have to be regulations. If the government didn’t protect private or public property, how would disputes be settled over who got to use it? Surely you’re not the first person who wanted to camp at that park. How are they to know you won’t trash it? Sure you might be the exception – you’d be surprised how reckless and unthoughtful of the land some people can be.
I don’t think the problem here is injustice, but simply that laws are not comprehensive enough – they become a hindrance even to well-meaning citizens – it’s the bad apples that are spoiling it for everyone else. Rather than being letter-strict, like the rule on one car, one camper per camping spot, laws need to be comprehensive and take into account those situations that the law was not tailored to address in its initial writing.
As far back in history as I can think, land ownership has always favored the top economic bracket; that’s nothing new. You should check out scholar Mathias Risse, who writes a lot about the idea of shared global goods, especially in how it affects immigration laws. He can help give you some ideas to help flesh out your argument here.
“If the State owns a park, then by default, I own that park.” – except that so does everyone else in the State, and so you are actually only a co-owner of the park. Imagine the difficulty in discussing with every other tax-payer in the state how best to take care of the park. That’s where the role of the state government is – to act on behalf of and in the best interest of the people of the state. If the government isn’t doing a good job at it, that’s where voting and the democratic system come in to play. Of course, you need to get enough other co-owners to agree with you before something can be done.
The US is very different from other countries where the government decides what to do with the land and citizens have no say in the matter whatsoever, or the local government isn’t strong enough to regulate the land so the people can maximize its use. At least we in the US can do something about it.
If you don’t like the restrictions on access to land in the US, I’d suggest a trip to Africa where I know there’s plenty of wild land. Of course when it’s unregulated you always run the risk of being mauled by wild animals or killed by poachers who don’t want to be seen. In these unregulated areas there’s also a big problem with squatters and a strain on the natural resources when people are allowed to settle wherever they want to. Naturally everyone will want to pick the best location, so that location becomes concentrated with people who end up exhausting the resources, and then no one can enjoy it.
I used to live in Africa and have gone camping in the bush before. It’s a fun and refreshing to be away from so many man-made things, but there are still frustrations because other people who have gone camping in the same area as us don’t always respect the land – often we find litter all over the place, and who’s going to pick up all that mess? Either the park rangers or those of us who DO respect the land will have to take responsibility, and I don’t know about you but I don’t like having to deal with other people’s trash unless I’m paid to do it. If you’ve ever had a messy roommate, you know the frustration of this free-loading.
I’m sorry you’re camping plans were ruined, but if you want to do something about this situation, find a solution that takes into account that other people won’t treat the land the same as you do.