The First Person to Put Up a Fence: Why Is This Land Yours?

Bölüm metni

Think of the first human being who drew a fence around a field and said, "this place is mine." Saying that sentence was not enough; the real matter was that the people facing him believed it. So if you made none of the things in your hands yourself, what exactly is it that says they are yours?

Picture a field. Early morning, the dew still on the grass. A man comes walking, a bundle of stakes on his shoulder, a mallet in his hand. He stops, looks around him, then drives the first stake into the ground. The sound of the mallet echoes through the valley. Then a second stake, then a third. By evening a rope is stretched around the crooked quadrangle he has traced with his own footsteps. And the man straightens up, wipes the sweat from his face, turns to the neighbours who happen to be passing and says, in the most ordinary voice in the world: this is mine.

This is the strangest moment in history. Because that sentence rests on nothing at all. The land did not come out of his body. He did not buy it from anyone, because buying had not yet been invented. Nobody gave it to him. The man only stretched a rope and spoke a sentence. And the sentence hung there in the air.

What matters is what happens next. What did the crowd do? Did they laugh, tear out the stakes, drive the man off? No. The crowd stopped, looked, looked at one another, and stayed outside the rope. In his famous text of seventeen fifty-five, the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau stages precisely this scene, and he turns its sharp end not on the man but on the crowd. The true founder of civil society is not the one who puts up the fence; it is those who agree to believe him. Had someone stepped forward, pulled up the stakes and said the land belongs to no one, Rousseau writes, humanity would have been spared who knows how many wars, how many murders, how much misery.

This may sound like a fable. It is not. The same scene, with stone walls and lines of thorn hedge in place of the rope, was played out for centuries in the English countryside. There was such a thing as common land: the village pasture open to everyone, the coppice where firewood was gathered, the fallow field where animals grazed. You were not rich, but if you had a cow you had somewhere to graze it, and you had brush to feed your stove in winter. Then these lands were enclosed, one by one. Across the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, through thousands of separate acts of parliament, the commons were surveyed, divided, bounded and registered. It was legal, it was orderly, it was on the record. Only one thing happened: the person with nowhere to graze a cow sold the cow. The person who sold the cow had to sell his labour instead. That crowd walking from countryside to city gathered at the factory gates.

A fence does not only cut land in two. It cuts people as well. The one left inside and the one left outside are born, in the same instant, as two separate classes.

And the cruellest form of the fence is the one that behaves as though it had never been put up at all. European jurists used a concept for centuries: land that belongs to no one. Even when people were living on it, if those people had not divided that land with fences the way Europeans did, had not entered it in a register, had not ploughed and sown it, the land was counted as empty. The continent of Australia was governed on that assumption for centuries. Not until nineteen ninety-two did the country's highest court reject it, in the decision known as the Mabo case, recognising that the bond indigenous peoples had with land also gave rise to a right. For nearly two hundred years, in other words, the law said: this is not your land, because you did not build the fence that we build.

Well then, what if the fence had never gone up? In nineteen sixty-eight a biologist, Garrett Hardin, wrote a famous scenario: a common pasture with no owner inevitably collapses, because each person adds one more animal. For a long time this was taken as the decisive defence of property. Until Elinor Ostrom spent years examining real pastures, real fishing villages, real irrigation canals, field by field, all over the world. The study Ostrom published in nineteen ninety, and the Nobel prize she received in two thousand nine, showed this: there are commons that have worked for centuries without collapsing. What holds them up is neither the state nor a title deed. It is people who make their own rules, who police violations themselves, who have to look one another in the face.

So the fence was not inevitable. It was a choice. And like every choice, it demands a justification.

The man who built that justification more effectively than anyone in history wrote some seventy years before Rousseau. In the second of his Two Treatises of Government, published in sixteen eighty-nine, John Locke sets out to solve the question of property at the root, and he begins from somewhere marvellously simple: from your body.

Locke's starting point is this. In the beginning the earth belongs to all of us, true. But there is exactly one thing that is indisputably yours: your own body. Your hands are yours. Therefore the work of your hands is yours as well. When the man walking in the forest bends down beneath the oak and gathers acorns, those acorns have left the common store. He asked no one's permission, consulted nobody. He only bent down. He joined his labour to nature, and where he joined it, nature became his.

The power of this idea lies in the fact that it still sits in every one of our instincts. If you dug a garden for three years, picked the stones out of it yourself, planted the trees yourself, and in the spring of the fourth year somebody arrives and says this is mine, the thing that snaps inside you is exactly what Locke described. Labour is a piece a person tears off from himself. When you join it to something, you leave part of yourself there.

But Locke is not as comfortable a man as we assume. He immediately lays two heavy conditions on this right. The first: take as much as you can use, do not let it spoil. If the fruit you gathered is rotting in your hands, that fruit was never yours; you wasted it. The second, and the more searing: enough must be left behind for others, and left as good as what you took. Which means that if your fence leaves your neighbour without water, that fence is not legitimate.

Now pay attention. Locke himself also explains how these two conditions came to be overcome: by the invention of money. The moment you begin to accumulate gold that does not rot instead of apples that do, the first condition becomes meaningless. You can accumulate without limit and nothing spoils. And once limitless accumulation begins, the second condition collapses of its own accord, because enough for everyone is no longer left behind. Locke tells this not as a catastrophe but as an arrangement to which people quietly consented. Yet what he is admitting is this: that clean justification resting on labour has been worn away by the very order that invokes it.

Objections came too. The sharpest of them is unforgettable because it is so plain: is joining your labour to something a way of gaining that thing, or of losing your labour? Robert Nozick asks it in nineteen seventy-four. You have a can of tomato juice and you pour it into the ocean. Your tomato juice has mixed with the sea. Has the ocean now become yours, or have you merely lost your tomato juice? Joining your labour, then, generates a right not in proportion to the size of what you joined it to, but according to whether everyone consents to it. The justification comes back to the crowd again.

There was a harsher voice as well. In What Is Property?, published in eighteen forty, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon answers his own question in three words: property is theft. But what Proudhon means is not your house or your tools. The distinction he draws is this: property you use, you work, you live inside is one thing; property you never touch, that you own only on paper and through which you take a share of someone else's labour, is quite another. To the first he raises no objection. The second he calls theft.

And there is a distinction that sits at the very centre of the matter. In eighteen seventy-nine Henry George sees it: if you made a table, the table is yours, because before you made it the table did not exist. But the land was there before you were born. You did not produce the land. The value of a plot arises from nothing its owner did, but from a road being laid past it, a school opening nearby, that is, from the collective labour of others. This is why George argued for a tax on land itself: let whatever you produced remain with you, and let the value the land gains thanks to all of us return to all of us.

The labour justification is strong. But left on its own it is not enough. Because labour cannot say how far it reaches, when it ends, or how it is passed on through inheritance. Another framework is needed to say that.

There is a tradition of thought that builds that framework from a place very far from the Western debate on property, and in building it, it makes one very basic move: it takes ownership out of human hands and sets it one level higher.

The phrase repeated in various places in the Qur'an is plain: to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. This is not a legal sentence but a sentence about existence itself; it takes the topmost link of the chain of ownership out of human hands. In this way of thinking, the human position is not that of malik, the owner, but of khalifa, the steward, and of trustee. What has been given to you is not property but the authority to use. It is yours because you hold it; you do not hold it because it is yours.

This distinction may sound like a subtle point of theology. But its practical consequences are very concrete. A saying attributed to the Prophet and recorded in the hadith collections declares that people are partners in three things: water, pasture and fire. That is, the spring, the grazing ground and the fuel. These cannot be fenced, because they are not things brought into being by anyone's labour; they are the conditions of life itself.

So how does land become yours? The answer Islamic law gives to this question is ihya al-mawat, the revival of dead land. Whoever revives an ownerless, uncultivated, dead piece of ground, whoever clears its stones and brings water to it and makes it fit for planting, that ground becomes his. This stands surprisingly close to Locke's idea of labour. But with one critical difference: here the right arises not from labour being joined to something, but from the land being brought to life. The measure is not in you; it is in the soil. If you do not revive it, if you cannot revive it, the right lapses the moment you let go. Ownership here is not a possession but the counterpart of a duty.

The ripest fruit of this logic is the waqf. According to the account, Umar acquires a valuable piece of land at Khaybar and comes to the Prophet to ask what he should do with it. The answer he receives is short: hold back the substance, give away the yield. The land is made unsellable, un-inheritable, un-giftable; only its produce keeps flowing. That is exactly what a waqf is, and it is a strange thing: property that has a holder but that nobody can ever own. Across Ottoman lands, soup kitchens, madrasas, bridges, fountains and caravanserais stood for centuries on this legal invention. The person who draws up the waqf deed does not lose his property; he freezes it, and declares himself its servant.

And this is where the answer to our question emerges. Is ownership a burden? In this tradition, yes. For property to be yours means being answerable for what you do with it. A trust is a weight that has to be carried.

The Ottoman land order applied this logic at the scale of a state. Most arable land counted as miri: the bare ownership, the raqaba, belonged to the state, while the right of use belonged to the peasant. In the sixteenth century the Şeyhülislam Ebussuud Efendi systematised this order in law and defined the title in the peasant's hands as a kind of lease. The peasant could not sell the land, could not divide it as he pleased, could not leave it idle at will. Land left unsown for three years running without valid excuse became mahlul: it was taken from him and given to someone else. The price of keeping land in your hands, in other words, was sowing it.

The way this system came apart is instructive too. With the Land Code of eighteen fifty-eight, land began to be registered in the names of individuals. But a title deed also meant taxes and conscription. Many peasants were afraid to have their names entered in the register, and had their land recorded in the name of a tribal chief, an influential merchant, some local notable they knew. On paper the land was theirs. After a while, the paper became the reality itself. Those who had tilled that soil for centuries became tenants of the very fields they sowed. A fence had been drawn not by driving stakes, but with ink.

Ibn Khaldun had seen this long before, in the Muqaddimah. For him, the surest sign of a state's collapse is hands reaching for people's property. Because the moment a person understands that what he produces will not stay with him, he stops producing; when production stops, taxes stop, and when taxes stop, the state stops. Injustice ruins umran, the flourishing of settled life. Property appears here not as a sacred right but as a fragile promise that keeps a civilisation's willingness to work alive.

And the question beneath this entire debate is asked in two lines by the quatrain attributed to Yunus Emre in Anatolia: owner of goods, owner of property, where then is this thing's first owner? Asked from the graveyard, the question of who was there before the fence went up answers itself.

Now get up from that first man's field and come back to today. Because do not imagine the fence has vanished; it has only become invisible, and it now runs not around land but around far stranger things.

Let us start with inheritance. If you have a house and that house came to you from your father, the fact that the house is yours has nothing whatever to do with labour. It is yours because you were born. Locke's entire justification is left hanging here: nobody's labour can be transferred by inheritance, only its result. What is interesting is that almost every legal tradition, while accepting this transfer, also tries to limit it. The Turkish Civil Code has an institution called the reserved share: you cannot erase your children's and your spouse's portion entirely by your will. Islamic inheritance law, the fara'id, goes further still and fixes the shares one by one, with their ratios; it makes the gathering of property into a single pair of hands impossible from the outset. Both systems carry the same intuition: property should disperse at death. Because if it does not disperse, it accumulates, and as it accumulates the fence grows.

Let us come to rent. The rental contract is the most everyday form of the fence. Two people do not live in the same flat; one lives inside it, the other owns it. The money the occupant pays every month is paid not for the upkeep of the flat, but for the fact that the flat is registered in somebody else's name. This does not mean it is a bad thing; the owner may well have worked for years to save that money. But Henry George's distinction rings out again right here: if the value of that flat doubled in the last five years, did the owner do that, or was it the metro line, the school, the hospital that opened in the neighbourhood? The tenant is in fact paying a value all of us produced together to a single name.

Look at copyright. You wrote a song. The song is yours, nobody disputes it; it is the purest Lockean example, because before you wrote it that melody did not exist. But how long should the protection last? Under the rules in force in Turkey, seventy years after the death of the author. After death. Your labour, in other words, outlives you by nearly another human lifetime, and throughout that time grandchildren you never met, or a company that bought the rights, stand inside that fence. And when the term runs out, what happens? The copyright on the nineteen twenty-eight animated short film Steamboat Willie expired in the United States on the first of January, two thousand twenty-four, and the first drawing of Mickey Mouse inside it passed into the public domain. For decades it had been one of the most fiercely guarded images in the world; one morning it belonged to everyone. When the term ends, the fence comes down by itself. Which means it was never part of nature. It was always a calendar.

And the last one, the quietest. Data. Today, every time you open your phone, you are ploughing a field. Where you went, what you looked at and for how many seconds, the hour at which you could not sleep, how many times you wrote to whom. You produce these traces; your labour, your attention, your life. But the fence around that field does not belong to you. Regulations such as the law on the protection of personal data that came into force in Turkey in two thousand sixteen, numbered six thousand six hundred and ninety-eight, like their counterparts in Europe, grant you certain rights: to request information, to have data corrected, to demand its deletion. Notice that every one of these is a tenant's right. Not the right of ownership. You are not the owner of the data; you are the person about whom data is kept.

And here the true nature of the fence comes into view. Property is not a relationship between you and a thing. Nobody can have a relationship with a field; the field knows nothing of you. Property is a relationship between you and other people, and its content amounts to a single sentence: they will stand back. A title deed is not a document about land but a contract about human behaviour. Which is exactly why the person Rousseau really accused was not the man who put up the fence.

Now look at your own life. How many fences did you stand outside today? A door you did not go through, a lock you did not pick, a hand you drew back as you said this is not mine. Nobody forced any of it upon you. Almost the whole of modern life stands upright because millions of people spontaneously respect boundaries they cannot see. This may be humanity's greatest display of good faith. It is also its greatest agreement.

But just as every agreement has a price, it also carries a responsibility. The idea of trust was saying this: if it is in your hands, you are answerable for it. The idea of revival was saying this: if you are not bringing it to life, your right lapses. The idea of the waqf was saying this: the soundest ownership is the one that has bound itself to service. Locke's forgotten second condition was saying this: let enough be left behind for others too.

When that man stretched his rope, the crowd fell silent. Thousands of years have passed and the crowd is still silent. But silence is not approval. Silence can also mean waiting for the answer to a question that has not yet been asked. There is no single correct answer to why this land is yours; every generation writes it again. Today it is you standing in that crowd, and the answer you give decides who will be left on which side of the rope tomorrow.

Nöron Philosophy'de bugünkü bölümün sonuna geldik. Yeni bir hikâyede yeniden buluşmak üzere.