Is there a difference between the common and the collective?

When we speak about the commons, we do not speak about a collective property that is set apart from us, as is the case with the public property that is managed by the state. Universal common proprety regimes such as the GPL or the Creative Commons do not create a collective property, but a proprerty that is common.

This is a distinction that is customary in the left-libertarian movement, but uncommon in the traditional left.

We’re quoting Dan Sullivan, a ‘Geolibertarian’:

Common Rights vs. Collective Rights


“One of the great tragedies of socialism has been the confounding of common rights (natural rights common to each individual) with collective rights (those that have been delegated to the community or its government). Common rights are inalienable, individual rights — the very opposite of collective rights. Classical liberalism was based on the idea of common rights.”

“A parallel confusion exists between common property and collective property, and the classical liberal concept of common property has been all but obliterated. An open park perhaps comes closest to the idea of common property, for anyone has an equal right of access to the park. However, restrictions on what one may do in a park, to the degree that they are arbitrary, render the park a collective property. Â A government maintenance building, on the other hand, is truly a collective property. Nobody is granted a right to trespass except on government-sanctioned business. This is another distinction blurred by socialists, who refer to “common property,” but who propose to put that property under the control of governments, collectives, and majorities.

Â

Common Property and Common Law: Prior to the degeneration of common-law communities into feudalism, land other than royal estates (government property) was held, not collectively, but “in common.” This meant that any person had a right to take up land and use it, and in so doing, hold it in his exclusive possession for as long as he continued using it. The limit to this right was that he could not hold land out of use, nor take up so much as to deprive others their own right to similarly take up land. “Lords” (literally “great people”) were given responsibility to serve as land stewards, and to settle disputes over access to land. (The royal family name “Stuart” is an early spelling of “steward.”)

Gradually, however, lords exercised more and more control over the common property, sometimes converting it into collective property, and sometimes allocating more land to themselves and their assigns, thereby converting it into private property. Much land that had not been claimed as property of the nobility was set aside “for the preservation of game” (a precursor of modern wilderness preserves). In both ways, they violated the common-law right of access to the earth.”

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.