Defending the commons

December 2024 Forums General discussion Defending the commons

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #85040
    alanjjohnstone
    Keymaster
    #121632
    ALB
    Keymaster

    As the article mentions but doesn't emphasise the problem is not so much individuals picking mushrooms to eat themselves but "commercial fungi foraging" by people picking them to sell to shops and restaurants. So, another example of the "tragedy of the commons under capitalism".Incidentally, the regulations for Richmond Park say you can't pick mushrooms (or flowers) without the permission of the Secretary of State, so I wrote asking for permission but, in a letter dated 1 April, was refused.

    #121633
    alanjjohnstone
    Keymaster

    I was going to mention that aspect…and add how Ostrom recognised that all the societies she studied possessed what amounted to by-laws often enshrined in custom to ensure the rights were not abused. 

    #121634
    ALB
    Keymaster

    I found a copy of the letter I sent to the local paper a couple of years ago:

    Quote:
    I see someone has been fined for picking mushrooms in Richmond Park (Park fungus fine, December 12).This seems like a leftover from feudal times when the common people were banned from collecting wood and land usurped by the aristocracy. Or are the mushrooms reserved for the royal family and the Secretary of State?

    It seems I got the wrong end of the stick.

    #121635
    HollyHead
    Participant

    Greenwich Park is open to the public and is I suppose a 'commons'.However it has a set of by-laws one of which forbids '…the mending of chairs   ' within the confines of the park.

    #121636
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    Is that a strange southern colloquialism?

    #121637
    HollyHead
    Participant

    Certainly not Tim. There was a time when chair mending was a perfectly respectable way of earning a living. Mind you it was before the advent of IKEA.

    #121638
    Dave B
    Participant

    The government, under a law that was passed, conceded control of the water under a monopoly to Bechtel in a certain area. So that means that Bechtel tried to charge a fee and had the monopoly power over a very basic necessity for people. The law said even that people had to ask, had to obtain a permit to collect rainwater. That means that even rainwater was privatized. The most serious thing was that indigenous communities and farming communities, who for years had their own water rights, those water sources were converted into property that could be bought and sold by international corporations.  http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/5/bolivian_activist_oscar_olivera_on_bechtels

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.