Public and/or private property

So, the idea of public property reveals something about the way political protection operates ‘on the ground’ of real life. ‘Public’ assumes a determinate body of people, amalgamated as a political group. ‘Property’ is a relationship between a citizen and objects which they have exclusive domain and freedom of action over. Since a group of people cannot uniformly exert control over property, the term ‘public’ gets stretched and shifted. If a tension in use arrises (like, if you need to knock down a fence, but other members of the ‘public’ wish it to remain), the competing claims can be resolved by force/law. So, laws resolve the indeterminate relationship each person in the ‘public’ has with their ‘property’ by defining the specific type of relationship that must be maintained with that property. As soon as anyone breaks those laws, they no longer qualify as part of the ‘public’ that owns that ‘property,’ and become excluded from the space of protected property owners.

Related: I had a conversation tonight with a man who has been homeless for 25 years. He told Zack and I about his life with drug addiction, nomadism, and prison. Several times he referred to his efforts to get back and become ‘a real human.’ This demonstrates the way that respected human life becomes twisted to only refer to citizens (who don’t damage public property..) and not to the fact of existing as a human. He only gains respect or validation as someone without 2 felony convictions, with a home.

Duncan