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 ...

1. 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

2. 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 acquisitiveness (which are admittedly
natural human traits, but that doesn't mean we have to indulge
them. After all, violence is also a natural human trait). So
property had to be redefined: it is absolute; it is permanent; it
is mine. It can even be abstract (copyrights, interest on
investments). It is this view of property - fairly recent,
historically - on which the wise-users base their claims.
Socialism, which comes in many shapes and sizes, was a
nineteenth-century backlash against this new gospel of greed.
So far, it hasn't worked very well (witness the late unlamented
USSR) but sometimes it does, in smaller places or smaller ways
(Cuba; the British national health care system; American Social
Security). In its more radical forms it has scarcely even been
tried yet. But Karl Marx, who can be thanked for many of the
changes in capitalism itself (they were a response to his
observations, enacted by governments who feared a socialist
revolution if they didn't do something) can also be thanked for
the fact that most of us now believe that, even if private
property is OK, we have a social obligation not to use our
property in ways that are harmful to the community. The wise
users don't agree - they are a minority, but a powerful one.

3. Click on the following link to learn more about Karl Marx.
· Karl Marx
The term "wise use" first appears in the Reagan era, when the
administration in Washington always supported the big
corporations against the "tree huggers." Essentially the wise-
users want us to believe, "hey, we're environmentalists too, we
just want to conserve natural resources for future generations."
In actuality it amounts to, "hey, we own these damn resources,
and we won't have any eco-radicals telling us how to use what
we own." Anyway, that's the view of most other
environmentalists. Go to the web site of the main wise-use
organization, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise,
(link at the bottom of page), and make your own judgment -
then talk about it in the forum this week. There's an old maxim
that is one of the first questions you learn in law school: cui
bono? that is, "who benefits?" Look at who funds organizations
like CDFE, and consider who benefits if they get their way.
Wise use, in all its manifestations, relies on one legal or
constitutional principle: the right to private property. True, this
is one of the foundations of Western civilization, and nearly all
ideologies - liberal or conservative - take it for granted.
(Anarchists and communists do not, nor do many non-Western
cultures.) The wise use movement appeals to patriotism to
support its case: the right to hold property is a basic American
freedom. (Note all the red, white and blue on these websites.)
The argument is this: if private property is truly private, then
the owner has a right to use (or abuse) it in any way s/he
pleases. If the government (or any institution) can interfere,
then the property is not truly "private," and the owner is not
truly "free." The movement strongly opposes the Endangered
Species Act, for example: if the government forbids me to cut
down a forest on my land because an endangered owl lives in
the trees, then I do not have the property rights or freedoms our
ancestors fought and died for.
You need to know two key terms: "eminent

4. domain" and "takings." The first is the government's power to
take private property for public use (provided that fair
compensation is paid), even if the owner is not willing to sell.
This is often how the state acquires land to build new highways,
for example. Eminent domain is universally accepted, and is
enshrined in the Fifth Amendment: ". . . nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Eminent domain derives from medieval English feudal law, and
no one seriously questions it. "Takings" is another matter
altogether, and the demand that American courts recognize
"takings" as a form of property rights is at the crux of the wise-
use agenda.
Everyone agrees that the government has a right to take some of
my property, in the form of taxes or real estate or whatever. But
does it have the right to take property that is only potential, that
I have not yet acquired? Consider this case: I own a factory, and
the government demands that I install "scrubbers" in my
smokestacks to eliminate air pollutants. I must of course pay for
the installation; this is all right constitutionally (just as the
government may demand that I get and pay for a license if I
want to drive a car). But what if the scrubbers reduce my
factory's efficiency and output, or require more expensive fuels
and upkeep, making it necessary that I raise the price of my
product? Then the government's requirement for scrubbers is
"takings" because it is taking away future profits, on products
not yet manufactured. The wise use movement insists that
"takings" are just as unconstitutional as seizing my property for
a highway and not paying me for it.
So far the courts have not accepted this argument. But what if
they do?
Here's another aspect to think about: The wise use movement is
heavily funded by corporations, especially those involved in
mining and lumbering. Much of the money they donate goes to
"educational materials" for teachers, often given away free. The
goal, of course, is to persuade young students (still
impressionable, and still formulating their world views) that

5. economic growth and multinational corporations are good for
the environment. Compare the message in "Truax" to the
message suggested by C. Montgomery Burns' friend "Blinky"
(right). "Truax" is a teaching tool for elementary schools
created by an organization of wood-flooring manufacturers. Be
sure to look at these two documents before posting to the forum
(one is the comic book given to kids; the other is the teacher's
guide).