Arizona’s Tonto National Forest is a landscape of beautiful complexity, from the Sonoran desert’s flowering cacti to the gorges and mountains of the Mongollon Rim. Home to rare desert lakes, fertile river valleys, meandering streams and grand plains stretching across the horizon, its air is still sweet, mixed with juniper, fir and ponderosa pine.
On December 4, politicians stole this incredible wildness, this product of the forces of deep time, from the public domain. Congress passed a measure ceding 2400 acres of Tonto to mining giant Rio Tinto Group‘s subsidiary Resolution Copper, attaching the theft as a rider to its latest “National Defense and Authorization Act.” The area is now slated for destruction for the largest operating copper mine in the United States.
This is a grand theft of heritage, especially for the Apache for whom Tonto remains a native place of worship. In an emotional piece for Indian Country Today Terry Rambler, Apache Tribal Chairman, wrote: “We are concerned for our children who may never see or practice their religion in their rightful place of worship … However, the Apache people will not remain silent. We are committed to shining light on the Land Exchange and the proposed mine until we have no breath.”
Enclosure movements devastate communities. Who we are, whether we realize it or not, is greatly influenced by our ties to the surrounding ecology. Land is emotion — a product of deep and lasting roots.
But, this is of no concern to the state. Any sacred tract inside the political borders or territories of the nation-state may be taken at will — a power as unjust as it is unnatural.
However, a number of libertarian wrenches may be thrown into the gears of such power-driven land acquisitions. Two are pertinent to this situation. A third offers liberation.
The first is the Paper Wrench. Activist groups can use any and all available legal decrees to delay mining operations. Paper wrenching refers to pursuing lawsuits that force industry professionals and teams of highly paid corporate lawyers to navigate an array of legal challenges. The method is proven. In the Appalachian coalfields, for instance, the Paper Wrench has delayed some strip mine operations for years. In some cases, legal expenditures prove so great that industry abandons mining operations altogether.
The second is the Monkey Wrench. Coined by desert enthusiast Edward Abbey in his 1975 novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, the term “monkey wrenching” refers to acts of sabotage to protect wilderness areas. Willing activists may permanently incapacitate machinery and equipment to outright halt industry activity. The Monkey Wrench may also be used to inflict minor damage to force repairs thus buying time for legal negotiations (or paper-wrenching). For individuals up in arms about property destruction I pose the question: What is more violent — snipping a fuel injection line so an Earth mover will not start, or destroying a struggling arid ecosystem and place of heritage for all future generations?
The third wrench would free natural sites of sweeping land use policy by reimagining governance. It demands a reclaiming of the commons so land is not viewed as a commodity, but felt as a connection — a place of labor and heritage. In such a system place is an integrating concept. Land is associated with the community and the individual in the commons — land is legacy as space is place. Here, land is liberated from the nation-state and its enclosure movements. None are denied the holy experiences awaiting us in our cool, still canyons. The Apache could forever worship in peace.
I speak of the Anarchy Wrench.
Citations to this article:
- Grant Mincy, Anarchy and the Wrench, Before It’s News, 12/15/14
If the land wasn't public, but owned property of those to make a claim over it (such as the Apache, but that's not established) this wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, this might be beneficial, mines need to exist. Sorry, I can't be too sympathetic here.
My recent post 10 Sources for Informational Listening on Anarcho-Capitalism
Of course mining is needed. Never said it wasn't. But, all enclosure movements are big deals. For five years this acquisition was successfully knocked down by the Apache and numerous other citizen groups. It wasn't until attached to the NDAA that this passed. The point is to have democratic decision making, not pork for John McCain.
Public land should belong to the public. Those spaces are supposedly "ours." There should be open and adaptive policy decisions made between stakeholders and resource managers regarding these lands. If such decisions lead to mining, so be it. But, in this case, that would not have been so and business interests knew it. So on into the NDAA it went.
It's impossible for the public to own land and democratic decision making is exactly the problem here.
My recent post 10 Sources for Informational Listening on Anarcho-Capitalism
It is not impossible for governance in the commons. There are examples all over the world of common governance. Furthermore, Adaptive Collaborative Management has been a growing trend in the United States for decades. In fact, any basic Human Dimensions of Nat. Resource management and natural resource conflict resolution talks about the overwhelming success of decentralized, adaptive governance where al stakeholders have equal footing at the table.
If you think the United States Congress, in an 11th hour, closed door session, attaching a rider to a defense bill because the result of 5 years worth of public forums squashed the idea from the get go is democratic… then we do not agree on fundamental vocabulary.
There is indeed a misunderstanding of vocabulary here. Most importantly, democracy and decentralization are NOT one in the same.
What you're talking about with public land are lands that everyone has to pay for and take 'responsibility' for whether they want to or not, and no, not everyone has equal say in the matter. That's an insane thing to suggest. That will never be the case. Like I said, impossible.
My recent post 10 Sources for Informational Listening on Anarcho-Capitalism
I understand democracy and decentralization are not one in the same.
In the world we currently live in, you are correct. There is compulsory taxation that manages "public" lands. I often talk about how this system is hailed by liberals as the only hope for the environment, but that sadly the state is the greatest unsustainable consumer in history.
There is a trend in the United States, and elsewhere, that has been growing over the years that bring resource practitioners and stakeholders together during conflict resolution. Public engagement, and responsibility in the process is the goal. Is it perfect yet? No. But it is real and it is a trend.
Outside the United States, the Kumaon and Rojava as just two examples of a true commons. Both very successful.
Common governance has two parts: 1. The Regime and 2. The Resource. Privatization and enclosure is not the only road to a free society. A robust common management regime that looks over common pool resources are just as valid and just as important as private property.
Far from impossible, adaptive governance does very good things everyday.
"A robust common management regime that looks over common pool resources are just as valid…"
This is called government and it is subject to the tragedy of the commons and the laziness of the "owners." It is also subject to the lack of economic calculation and can not be funded without theft.
If you're talking about a "regime" that maintains control but looks to those who use the land or resource for what to do with and how to handle it, you're still talking about privatization.
My recent post 10 Sources for Informational Listening on Anarcho-Capitalism
"[M]ines need to exist. Sorry, I can't be too sympathetic here."
Let's examine that assertion. We have already mined all the copper we would ever need several times over. It goes into products that are used for a few years and then go into a landfill or, worse, an incinerator. But as long as the federal government makes gifts of land to mining industries, and does 10000 other things to distort the market in favour of extractive approaches, there is zero incentive to do the sensible thing: recycle the copper.
It's only called a "government" if it holds a monopoly on management. I doubt that's what Grant is interested in.
In terms of the "tragedy of the commons" you should check out Roderick Long's, "In Defense of Public Property".