Robert Frost
[12jan19 gjr update] From some of the comments below it appears that a word of clarification is required, not only about Frost’s poem but also walls, fences, and other things that demark and control access. Such constructs are nothing more than the existential and visible attributes of contracts that define property rights within a society. These transmit the unambiguous message that this side belongs to me, and the other side belongs to someone else; and I don’t want someone from the other side coming unbeknownst to me onto my property from where I have constructed my wall/fence or any other kind of barrier. For access to my property at certain locations I have provided gates, the states of which I can control, and therefore control access to my property.
People who don’t share the value of such rights, and perhaps feel that these delineated things should be owned in common, or at least be shared unhindered, will oppose physical barriers that unambiguously define ownership and provide for non-owner access only at the pleasure of the owner.
Today such values are very much the topic of hot debate between ideologically estranged peoples and nations. Conservatives and libertarians are very much proponents of property rights and such expression of these rights. They believe that property (and any asset of value) that is owned by everyone is owned by no one, and treated as such. (cf. Garrett Hardin's 'Tragedy of the Commons') Everywhere that property is ‘owned by the people’, it is actually owned by their government which visibly deports itself as owner. The definition of ownership is straightforward – you own something only to the extent that you can dispose of it as you will. The thinking person immediately understands that ownership is not a simple ‘you own it, or you don’t’. Instead, they know that ownership is very much nuanced, and that anything owned can also be taken insidiously and stage wise from the weaker by the stronger. In the US we have seen such erosion of ownership occur with many things, including real property and firearms. In an autocracy (which we are fast becoming) such subtle transfers of ownership are replaced by more direct and unambiguous methods.
(In understanding ownership, be careful not to confuse that notion with the responsibility for and/or accountability for the disposition of said property by its de juris owner or any third party.)
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment