Given the statist origin of the CHH, we should not be surprised that defining and empowering the ‘community’ – to which this past, present and future heritage might belong – is problematic.

We are here still obsessed with ‘Ownership’. Why? Do we think that if I ‘own’ my bike it is less likely to be taken from me? The respect for property seems so fundamental we cannot be sure whether it is inbred or inherent in us – ‘mine’ is one of the first words a child learns to assert, and sharing seems to have to be imposed by embarassed parents.

What matters vis a vis the commons is not ownership but caring for, who takes responsibility for. Many of the doubts about the commons arise because people think in terms of ‘rights’ rather than ‘responsibilities’. This is probably inevitable while we have such social inequality, and while positions of power are mainly occupied by men, as in the unions and the state, who tend to think in terms of rights rather than caring for. When we think of looking after the commons there is no conflict, everybody can share in that.