Human beings (and many other animals) are territorial - the distinction between "mine" and "yours" is not learned or cultural; it is deeply rooted in our animal instincts. This is what makes the argument from property rights so powerful. Supporters of Capitalism (wise-users among them) believe that all property should be "mine," whereas Socialism (including most environmentalists, in some form or other) think that most property should be "ours." This is a very old and fundamental debate; "Capitalism" and "Socialism" are merely the newest names for the two sides. Modern socialists and anarchists usually agree that "I" am entitled to enough private property for my own personal use (no one wants to share a toothbrush!) but that all excess property should belong to the community (why do I need two houses? for example). And the property I personally need is very little indeed. Any more than that, and I am usurping what others could use: I am getting rich at someone else's expense; I am creating two classes of society, the "haves" and the "have nots." To get to the point: opponents of wise use believe that it is wrong for me to abuse, pollute, destroy or otherwise damage property that should benefit everyone. I can trash my own house, if I like; that's my business; but when I trash the larger environment, that's everyone's business, even if the property laws say that environment is "mine." The "wise use" position is that "mine" is mine, no limits, no restrictions. When modern capitalism evolved in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it worked only because new laws defined "property" in new and inventive ways so that the capitalists could be certain of keeping the profits they made in the free market. No entrepreneur would want to start a new business if he could not be certain that it, and any profit it made, were really his. (At least, that was what the capitalists and their partners in the newly centralized governments said.) In earlier ages, philosophers believed that property is temporary; that it is ours only so long as we actually use it (this is called "usufruct" in feudal law). After all, we come into the world with nothing, and we leave it with nothing, so property cannot be "ours" in any permanent sense. Medieval cities and kingdoms actually had laws against charging interest on loans or charging more for a loaf of bread than the poor could afford - because economic wealth was seen as belonging to the community, not to the individual. In fact, the entire Judeao-Christian-Muslim belief system preaches against the use of interest. They call it usury, and it is generally agreed to be greedy and potentially evil. Unfortunately, in the modern era, the Christians (and almost everyone else) seem to have abandoned this law. The Jewish and Islamic communities still adhere to it in varying degrees: the Islamic much more so. These notions of community and mutual benefit changed when the new market economy began to encourage greed and acquisiti ...