Tragedy of the Commonwealth and the Vision of Wendell Berry, The

The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.286

Instead of protecting the diversity of individual faculties, Berry would have the law protect against the resulting inequalities, through tariff and restrictive covenants, in order to limit the "different degrees and kinds of property" among the people. The effect is for the law or the commonwealth to choose between the "different interests and parties," rewarding some, penalizing others, for attempting to acquire and preserve property in accordance with what Madison regards as their natural faculties, sentiments, and views.

Within Berry's vision of the commonwealth, this presents a paradox. For the commonwealth to make such a choice it must deny that the knowledge that knows best is the local, intimate, experiential knowledge of the individual in his land and possessions, and to supercede it with the lesser knowledge of the community, the planner, or the legislator. By comparison, all are more remote in their understanding and knowledge of the needs, wants, sentiments, and affections of the individual than is the individual himself. Whereas Madison finds the "first object" of government to be in securing the individual's pursuit of those sentiments according to faculty, Berry would first have the commonwealth measure and assess, by some undefined standard, the validity of those sentiments before acknowledging them at law.

C. THE PROBLEM OF PROTECTIONISM: PRIVILEGE & PRICE

In his critique of the American "conservation effort," Berry argues that "conservationists have too often believed that we could protect the land without protecting people."287 He finds their assumption understandable given the threats to the United States' wilderness areas, but concludes that instead "we will have to reckon with the old assumption that we can preserve the natural world by protecting wilderness areas while we neglect and destroy the economic landscapes-the farms and ranches and working forests-and the people who use them."288 Thus, Berry urges his fellow conservationists "to address issues of economy," by which he means "issues of the health of the landscapes and the towns and cities where we do our work, and the quality of that work, and the well-being of the people who do that work."289 From this underlying premise, Berry believes it follows that "[b]ecause as individuals or even as communities we cannot protect ourselves against these aggressions [of the free market and low consumer prices], we need our state and national governments to protect us."290 As discussed above, Berry's idea of governmental protections aims at providing "the small farmer and the small merchant [with] the same economic justice, the same freedom in the market, as big farmers and chain stores."291