This should be a wakeup call for the rising Brazilian libertarian movement. The examination of political and social phenomena should never be pulled out of context.

Unfortunately, I have witnessed many instances of “de-contextualized libertarianism,” the application of libertarian principles to a given political issue without due regard to the circumstances. The analysis is scarily vitiated.

An example is the re-integration of Oi’s property, about which I have written. Some libertarians complimented the swift decision by the Justice. This can be seen as, technically, a correct application of the principle that property rights should be upheld. But what is missing? Context.

Thousands of people were deprived their homes by World Cup developments and natives and riverside inhabitants are being expropriated for the building of the Belo Monte dam. The same efficiency displayed by the state to reinstate Oi’s property is what allows its violence against the poor. Oi’s property reinstating, in context, reveals a state that combines the protection of the rich and powerful’s property with systematic aggression against the poor with an impetus to control their access to land.

A second example is the tendency, among some, to criticize Bolsa-Família (a welfare program for the very poor) and its recipients. We should listen to Kevin Carson: Our anger should not be directed towards welfare recipients, because the true parasites are higher up on the social pyramid.

Think about it: The state, by means of countless interventions and laws in the past and present has deprived the poor in Brazil of many opportunities and granted even more privileges (subtly or openly) to the well-connected. Do you really think that the few hundred reais from Bolsa-Família come even close to outbalancing what was taken from the poor in opportunity? They may receive welfare, but they are clearly hurt by the government. It is much better to criticize BNDES (a bank that primarily lends money to the rich on very favorable terms) and the insistence of the government on creating Brazilian transnational corporations.

One last example: Sao Paulo separatism. There exists a historical movement of secession in the Sao Paulo state. Libertarians defend secession, but the one the movement calls for is not libertarian, since they would not recognize the right of its constituent parts to secede as well.

Moreover, some people who argue that Sao Paulo should secede claim that it “supports the rest of the country” by having their taxes seized and spread among the other states in the country. It is impossible to associate libertarianism with that in any way. The Brazilian Amazon and the Northeast have always been hurt by the protectionism in favor of Sao Paulo, poorer people that have always bought more expensive goods to prop up Sao Paulo’s industries and finance a supposed “national development.” It would make sense, nowadays, to have the Amazonian states trade with the Andes countries. That is not possible, though, because Brasilia thinks the Mercosur is sacred.

Something amazing about the American left-libertarian tradition is its ability to turn libertarianism into a powerful tool of contextual political analysis. Albert Jay Nock, for one, used to denounce the usage of “imposter terms” such as laissez faire and individualism to cover the fact that since the very beginning of the modern factory system, there have been systematic interventions in favor of manufacture. In Brazil, in law schools, a convenient “imposter term” is the “liberal state from the 19th century,” a century in which liberals themselves were the opposition.

Hence, the conclusion we can arrive at is that, superficially and out of context, the application of libertarian principles seems to coincide with the interests of the elites, but attention to circumstances reveals that they are in line with the general welfare, especially for the poor. A contextualized libertarianism tends to be some form of left-libertarianism, which promotes individual freedom and social justice at the same time. We will not always agree on the details because the intellectual variety in libertarianism is impressive and positive, but we will be more consistent with the soul of classical liberalism.

Brazil needs a contextualized libertarianism that should be consequently inclusive, liberating and humanitarian. Contextless libertarianism, on the other hand, is but a pretext to those “those selfish and blind interests that set themselves athwart the necessary transformation of a political and economic organization which has ceased to be adapted to societies’ present conditions of existence,” which Gustave de Molinari mentioned in the 19th century.

Translated from Portuguese into English by Erick Vasconcelos.

Questa è la stessa Rio de Janeiro in cui migliaia di famiglie sono state espropriate delle loro case per fare spazio alle strutture dei mondiali di calcio 2014. Non solo sono stati sloggiati, ma mediamente hanno ricevuto un risarcimento minimo e sono stati trasferiti in zone molto lontane. Secondo il Comitato Olimpico e dei Mondiali di Calcio, che si è lamentato al proposito, gli espropri, che vanno oltre il necessario, spazzano via intere comunità povere per lasciare spazio a progetti di sviluppo urbano a beneficio delle imprese immobiliari.

Nel frattempo, l’Aneel (l’ente nazionale per l’energia elettrica) ha approvato l’esproprio di territori indigeni per la costruzione della diga di Belo Monte. Una lamentela fatta alla Commissione Inter-Americana sui Diritti Umani ha spinto quest’ultima nel 2011 a chiedere che lo stato brasiliano “garantisca subito il completamento del processo di regolarizzazione dei territori delle popolazioni indigene del bacino del fiume Xingu, adottando misure efficaci per la protezione delle terre, considerata l’occupazione e appropriazione illegittima da parte di popolazioni non indigene e il loro sfruttamento e spreco di risorse naturali”. Ma il governo ha fatto finta di nulla: Nel 2012 è stato formalizzato l’ultimo esproprio, che autorizza lo sfratto delle popolazioni lungo il fiume, nativi e piccoli agricoltori, per via amichevole o giudiziaria.

A vedere con quanta “efficienza” è stata restituita la proprietà alla Oi, uno potrebbe pensare ingenuamente che il governo brasiliano è un grande difensore della proprietà privata. Ma è lo stesso governo, e controlla la stessa polizia, che ha espropriato gli indigeni senza dare loro la possibilità di difendere effettivamente i loro possedimenti. Con il pretesto del “bene comune”, si fa carta straccia del diritto alla proprietà e ad una casa.

In un’intervista, il sindaco di Rio de Janeiro disse che non avrebbe permesso “privilegi agli occupanti abusivi”, che lui contrappose a quelli che sono in lista d’attesa in programmi come Minha Casa, Minha Vida (“La Mia Casa, la Mia Vita”). Questo è solo un piccolo esempio di quanto il governo brasiliano sia determinato a controllare l’accesso ai terreni edificabili.

Come nota Pedro da Luz Moreira, presidente regionale dell’Istituto Brasiliano di Architettura, “Minha Casa, Minha Vida viene promosso nelle periferie, molto lontano dal centro dove è il lavoro. La sopravvivenza delle famiglie dipende da questo. Non ho informazioni precise sull’occupazione del palazzo Telerj, ma so che si trova vicino al cuore della città, dove sono le opportunità di lavoro.”

Questo è un esempio di quello che l’anarchico individualista Benjamin Tucker chiamava “monopolio territoriale”. Scrivendo verso la fine dell’ottocento, Tucker si concentrò sugli aspetti rurali del problema, descrivendo il metodo usato dal governo per “garantire titoli di proprietà su terre che non sono né occupate né coltivate”.

Nella sua versione aggiornata al ventunesimo secolo, uno degli strumenti principali dello stato per l’emarginazione dei poveri è il controllo delle terre edificabili. Primo, con i regolamenti edilizi nega ai poveri l’accesso all’edilizia a basso costo (a Rio tramite il divieto di costruire condomini, che ha dato origine alle moderne favelas, e il divieto di entrare in possesso di una terra pubblica con l’usufrutto). Secondo, queste persone diventano soggetti dello stato quando si iscrivono in lunghe liste d’attesa per poter avere un terreno, fuori dalle aree urbane e sotto lo scrutinio attento della burocrazia.

Albert Jay Nock diceva che lo stato è stato creato con l’obiettivo criminale di creare una classe subordinata priva di accesso alla proprietà, a beneficio delle élite che hanno accesso alla terra. Lo stato brasiliano, con la sua difesa assidua della “proprietà privata” delle grandi imprese, combinata con lo sforzo costante di privare i poveri della loro proprietà e controllare il loro accesso alla terra, è la prova di questo obiettivo criminale. Dopotutto, a chi possono chiedere il risarcimento gli espropriati di Belo Monte e dei Mondiali di Calcio?

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

This is the same Rio de Janeiro where thousands of families had their homes expropriated to open up space for the FIFA World Cup 2014 developments. Not only were they forced to leave their homes, they generally received very little compensation and were relocated to very distant regions. According to the Popular World Cup and Olympics Committee, in a complaint from last year, there are even more expropriations than actually necessary, which sweep off poor communities to make way for upper scale housing developments, for the benefit of real estate enterprises.

In the meantime, in the Amazon, expropriations of indigenous land were approved by Aneel (National Agency for Electric Energy) to make way for the Belo Monte Dam. A complaint presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights prompted a request, in 2011, that the Brazilian state should “guarantee the quick completion of the pending processes of regularization of the indigenous people’s ancestral lands in the Xingu River basin and adopt effective measures for the protections of such lands, given the illegitimate appropriation and occupation by non-indigenous peoples and their economic exploitation and dilapidation of natural resources.” The government, however, just kept business going as usual: In 2012, the last land expropriation was formalized, authorizing the removal of riverside dwellers, natives and small farmers, amicably or judicially.

One could think, naively, that the Brazilian government is a great guardian of private property in observing the “efficiency” with which it enforced the property reintegration to Oi. However, it is the same government, in control of the same police, which expropriated poor and indigenous people without giving them any chance of effective protection of their possessions. Under the pretext of upholding the “common good,” the people’s right to property and to a home is worthless.

In an interview, Rio’s mayor stated that he will not have “squatters like those be privileged,” as opposed to people who are waiting in line for government programs such as Minha Casa, Minha Vida (“My House, My Life”). This is a very small example of the determination of the Brazilian government to control access to urban land in the country.

As Pedro da Luz Moreira, regional president of the Architects Institute of Brazil states, “Minha Casa, Minha Vida is being pushed in the periphery, very far from the city centers where jobs are available. The survival of the families depends on that. I have no details on the occupation of the Telerj building, but it is close to the urban spot and, therefore, to job opportunities.”

Hence, it is an instance of what individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker called “land monopoly.” Writing near the end of the 19th century, he focused on the rural aspect of the issue, describing it as “enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation.”

This analysis calls for a 21st century update, since one of the main tools the government has for the exclusion of poorer people is the control of urban land. First, it denies low costs to poor people through urban regulation policies (in Rio, this included a ban on tenements, giving rise to modern favelas, and the prohibition of the homesteading of public land). Then, second, those people become dependent on the government and enter a long line to be able to get any land they can outside urban areas, under close bureaucratic surveillance.

Albert Jay Nock used to say that the state was created for the criminal purpose of creating a dependent class without access to property, for the benefit of the elites with access to land. The Brazilian state, in its uncompromising defense of big corporations’ “private property” combined to its ever dedicated effort to deprive poor of their property and control their access to land, is proof of that criminal intent. After all, from whom are the all the World Cup and Belo Monte property-less going to claim restitution?

Translated from Portuguese to English by Erick Vasconcelos.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, A Chi Chiederanno un Risarcimento i Poveri?