El mar, 08-02-2005 a las 09:46 -0300, Diego Saravia escribió:
cual es la diferencia?
En primer lugar, el ejemplo de la plaza pública es poco feliz, ya que el concepto no se aplica el concepto de commons. La "Plaza pública" es, como su nombre lo indica, un ámbito de lo público que está administrado por un administrador comunal (el Estado). No funciona de ninguna manera como funcionabanlos "commons". Tu ejemplo pierde de vista que el concepto de Commons es anterior al proceso de consolidación de los Estados Nacionales y la revolución industrial, etc etc etc... (Es mucha historia simplificada en un párrafo, lamentablemente inabordable en este ámbito).
si pasas una referencia podre leerlo
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp66dWinterSpring2003p33.htm Boyle está refiriendo a un poema con el que abre su texto, para explicar que los "common lands" no entraban _siquiera_ bajo el régimen de propiedad (ni privada, ni pública). Los commons no tenían administración, mucho menos estatal (tal como parecés indicar en tu comentario sobre las plazas públicas). El poema que cita boyle expone la controvertida naturaleza de los derechos de propiedad y cuestiona la legitimidad del poder del Estado. Existen muy pocos casos de "commons" en la historia de la humanidad, y si bien no coincido con Boyle en su apreciación sobre los "resultados" del primer cercamiento, si es muy claro y breve su análisis de lo que efectivamente eran los commons y cómo se produjo el primer cercamiento (comparando luego con lo que llama el Segundo cercamiento, este si, de los "commons" inmateriales). I. THE FIRST ENCLOSURE MOVEMENT This poem [1] is one of the pithiest condemnations of the English enclosure movement, the process of fencing off common land and turning it into private [*pg 34] property.[2] In a few lines, the poem manages to criticize double standards, expose the artificial and controversial nature of property rights, and take a slap at the legitimacy of state power. And it does this all with humor, without jargon, and in rhyming couplets. Academics (including this one) should take note. Like most of the criticisms of the enclosure movement, the poem depicts a world of rapacious, state-aided "privatization," a conversion into private property of something that had formerly been common property or, perhaps, had been outside of the property system altogether. Sir Thomas More went further, though he used sheep rather than geese to make his point. He argued that enclosure was not merely unjust in itself, but harmful in its consequences -- a cause of economic inequality, crime, and social dislocation: But yet this is not only the necessary cause of stealing. There is another, which, as I suppose, is proper and peculiar to you Englishmen alone. What is that, quoth the Cardinal? Forsooth my lord (quoth I) your sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame, and so small eaters, now, as I hear say, be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up, and swallow down the very men themselves. They consume, destroy, and devour whole fields, houses, and cities. For look in what parts of the realm doth grow the finest and therefore dearest wool, there noblemen and gentlemen . . . leave no ground for tillage, they enclose all into pastures; they throw down houses; they pluck down towns, and leave nothing standing, but only the church to be made a sheep-house. . . . Therefore that one covetous and insatiable cormorant and very plague of his native country may compass about and enclose many thousand acres of ground together within one pale or hedge, the husbandmen be thrust out of their own.[3] The enclosure movement continues to draw our attention. It offers irresistible ironies about the two-edged sword of "respect for property," and lessons about the way in which the state defines and enforces property rights to pro- [*pg 35] mote controversial social goals. The most strident critics of the enclosure movement argue that it imposed devastating costs on one segment of society. Enclosures have appropriately been called a revolution of the rich against the poor. The lords and nobles were upsetting the social order, breaking down ancient law and custom, sometimes by means of violence, often by pressure and intimidation. They were literally robbing the poor of their share in the common, tearing down the houses which, by the hitherto unbreakable force of custom, the poor had long regarded as theirs and their heirs'. The fabric of society was being disrupted. Desolate villages and the ruins of human dwellings testified to the fierceness with which the revolution raged, endangering the defences of the country, wasting its towns, decimating its population, turning its overburdened soil into dust, harassing its people and turning them from decent husbandmen into a mob of beggars and thieves. Though this happened only in patches, the black spots threatened to melt into a uniform catastrophe. [4]
-- Beatriz Busaniche http://www.d-sur.net/bbusaniche/