The Scouring of The Shire: On the Situation in Siruma
 |
| from: Kiudkad - the last resort Facebook page |
If we do not restore the Institution of Property we cannot
escape restoring the Institution of Slavery; there is no third course
– Hilaire Belloc
The Facts (So Far)
As of the writing of this blogpost, there is a
situation unfolding in Brgy. San Ramon, Siruma, Camarines Sur. According to the
sources I’ve found, it all started last January 28, when “vehicles loaded with
fencing materials arrived” at the said area. This was all done “without prior
notice to the barangay,” that is, without informing the local community.
The fencing operations which affected not only San Ramon but also Brgy.
Salvacion, according to one source, “began the same day.”[1]
The said territory being claimed under the Navarro/Wanderlust Land Development
Corporation title covers “approximately 1,014 hectares,”[2]
which is a significantly large area (it’s 3 times bigger, for instance, than
New York City’s Central Park, which is measured at about 843 acres). By the 2nd
of February, concerns regarding the operation had already reached the mayor’s
office.[3] To this
day, the fight of the local community/ies affected by this – “roughly 100
titled properties”[4] –
continues. To add a necessary context to the story, there is no DAR clearance
which will legitimize the transferring of a title to Wanderlust.[5]
Now, why would I, who, admittedly, has practically no
knowledge of the legal aspects of this issue, address this? My perspective is
simple, actually: I believe that I adhere to certain philosophical and ethical
principles that, if applied properly to our socio-economic policies, would sort
out this problem without sacrificing justice and charity. So, what I would
simply do here is lay out said principles and share them to the public to
expose it to (hopefully reasonable) critiques and/or improvements. As to the
practical applications of these principles, I will still address it, though I
would mostly leave that task to the side and let those who are closer to the
happenings and those who have better practical knowledge than myself to execute
them.
I understand that, for many, discussing the philosophy
and ethics of this situation sounds like a waste of time. “While we’re stuck in
being armchair thinkers,” some might say, “the enemy is advancing in his
attacks, so we better move.” This is a valid concern, but I do believe that
discussing this in the level of principles need not be set against doing
something in the level of practice. I am convinced that, whatever side of the
conversation you find yourself in, you are presupposing certain anthropological
and moral commitments that inform the way you see the situation in Siruma and
the concrete steps you want to take with regards to it. After all, we only
act in reference to what we know and believe, and so, we cannot shun a
reasonable conversation about our philosophical beliefs. And it is in that
realm where I wish to contribute. I hope I can help, even just a little.
So, what I’m going to do is as follows: (1) I will
first outline my philosophical commitment to using what Roger Scruton called oikophilia
(“the love of home”) as the superior criterion – above financial gain or
economic success – in judging whether our socioeconomic dealings – like
claiming someone’s land as your own – are just or not; then, (2) I will be
giving an exposition to what Catholic Social Teaching calls the principle of
subsidiarity as the consequent principle for action from Scruton’s oikophilia;
this leads me, before I conclude this post, to (3), in which I will describe
what I would call the Chester-Novak alternative and their practical
suggestions as possible concrete solutions to the Siruma problem.
The Philosophical Proposal: Roger Scruton’s Oikophilia
Roger Scruton’s philosophy is complex and learning
about it is nothing short of life-changing, but unfortunately misrepresented by
many of his opponents, but I digress. In this post, I will simply focus on a
fundamental idea that I have picked up from reading Scruton’s books: Oikophilia,
or the love of home.
 |
| Roger Scruton (1944-2020) Wikimedia Commons |
We are not built on the model of homo oeconomicus – the rational chooser who acts always to maximize his own utility, at whatever cost to the rest of us… Homo oeconomicus… consumes whatever he can find… (On the contrary, we) are animated by oikophilia, the love of the oikos, which means not only the home but the people contained in it… The oikos is the place that is not just mine and yours but ours. It is the stage-set for the first person
plural of politics, the locus, both real and imagined, where it
all takes place.[6]
Oikophilia is that which ensures that a
particular place or territory is transformed from a disordered jungle to a
well-ordered garden. Arranging things and making them aesthetically pleasing
and infused with meaning doesn’t necessarily make those within the place richer,
healthier, etc. because, again, to be human is to not be overly fixated to
accomplish utilitarian ends. We also have contemplative, rather than
merely practical, goals, and transforming a place into an oikos fulfills
this.
Accomplishing this requires that we engage in our communities' meaning-making
activities. That is, we don't just do things for the sake of satisfying our
appetites or for the fulfillment of our ego-centered motivations, but rather,
we must realize that we transcend mere animality, and that we are creatures in
search for meaning and orderliness for their own sake, simply because such
things - and people - are worth pursuing as they are. When your mother asks you
to clean your bedroom, when your school demands that you wear a uniform, when
you participate in your communities' local festivals, or when you fall in love
for the first time, you see (or you must see, at the very least) that such
things do not have a utilitarian value, and it’s alright, because we aren’t
merely homo oeconomicus, as Scruton has pointed out. Nevertheless, you
do them and are willing to experience them, not because of their usefulness,
but simply because they are what they are.
To
reiterate, the oikos is one thing that doesn't really have any
usefulness, but is nonetheless essential to our being human and our
interactions with one another in society. The works of art that our ancestors
made, the myths that built our local tribes, the traditional songs we sing, the
rituals that we engage in, etc. are all necessary in defining our collective
identity. In other words, what makes someone a "Nagueño," for
instance, is not just owning land in Naga City. Rather, to be a Nagueño means
to engage in a culture that gave you your "name," i.e. to eat kinalas,
to speak Bicol, to celebrate feminine beauty through the Ms. Bicolandia
pageant, to participate in the Peñafrancia traslacion/fluvial processions, etc.
The
point is that oikophilia allows us to inject a certain territory with personality
and sacredness, for it is when something is sacred that it is
considered an extraordinary thing, not to be used like other, ordinary objects
(it is when they are used as such that desecration occurs). It allows us
to ensure that a place is not hostile to us, but is a viable area for a society
to live in.
 |
| "The truth has made us free; the tradition has given to men the sort of liberty they really like... from hospitality to adventure, from parents instructing their own children to children inventing their own games, from practical jokes to pilgrimages and from patron saints to pub signs." - G.K. Chesterton, G.K.'s weekly, June 12, 1926 |
This
brings us to the people of Salvacion and San Ramon in Siruma. Had the land that
Wanderlust claimed for itself been an empty space, or an unoccupied forest, the
conversation would’ve been different. But since those places have been
transformed into an oikos by the local community, suddenly entering into
their territory and using it for an outsider’s personal gain is nothing short
of sacrilegious: it is an offense against the identity of the land, an
identity infused there by its people. As the philosopher Mark Dooley explains:
The radical and revolutionary mindset
seeks to de-personalize or deface the world… When the Lebenswelt (the
lived, ordinary reality experienced prior to any theory) is torn away, we ‘see
the world under one aspect alone, as a world of objects.’... We all know,
however, that when we gaze at a painting, a landscape or the community which we
are at home, we cannot help but encounter the subjectivity (or personality) of
the world. That is, we encounter the very same type of thing we experience when
beholding another person. It is as though the world smiles back at us from a
place beyond time… (This is what we can call) ‘the sacred.’...
That is why… the Devil consistently wages
war against art and culture. He does so because the culture of a nation –
expressed in its literature, music, artworks, political institutions and
religious rites – is the fabric of our common home. Through them, we connect,
not only with the living, but with the dead and the unborn. They root us to a
place, time, history, and to that homeland of the soul that we all crave as a
remedy to our existential isolation. They speak of… settlement and belonging
rather than estrangement and alienation.[7]
Just as a person (or a group of persons) must be treated
with love and respect instead of being merely objectified for someone else’s
utilitarian purposes, so also the land that serves as the extension of a
people’s personhood must be revered instead just seen as another “property,” to
be utilized for the sake of someone’s selfish ends, an act which
“de-personalizes” the land. Because of the people that lived in and cultivated
that same land, it’s not just a land; rather, it’s a home, and it
is its nature as a home that the people who live there have the sovereign power
to decide what happens within it and how to best take care of it.
Oikophilia, the love of
home, lends itself to the environmental cause… (a cause that is, unfortunately)
polluted by the ideology of big business… The result is a loss of confidence in
ordinary politics, a despair at human incapacity, and a last ditch adoption of
radical internationalist schemes that involve a surrender of sovereignty.[8]
The fact that the residents of San Ramon were not informed
beforehand[9]
that there will be certain operations to be accomplished in their land is
analogous to total strangers suddenly entering a house without the owner’s
permission. It is those who belong to that oikos that have the right to
be informed and to give their consent to such projects, especially since they
are the ones who have a loving attachment to it, just as any person has a
loving attachment to their home. Hence, they are the ones who can temper any outsider,
who lacks the said loving attachment, to alter it at the expense of those who
live in it.
The Proposal from Catholic Social Teaching: The Principle of
Subsidiarity
This brings us to a crucial teaching
advocated by the Catholic Church in her social doctrine: The Principle of
Subsidiarity. The Catechism
of the Catholic Church defines subsidiarity as the principle which says
that “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life
of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but
rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity
with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common
good.”[10]
 |
| Pope Pius XI, who advocated for subsidiarity in his encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno |
Subsidiarity
is the aspect of Catholic Social teaching against external coercion by any
large(r) community against the family and/or any intermediate, non-government
groups, in order for people and their immediate connections to freely choose
what’s good for them and what satisfies their self-interest. Subsidiarity is
the way to oppose tyranny and dictatorship. As Pope Pius XI wrote: “Just as
it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by
their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it
is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right
order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and
subordinate organizations can do”[11]
In
other words, it is true that the fight of the local communities in Siruma
against this unjust interference is a fight for “the protection of homes and
livelihoods” and “the security of an entire community.”[12] And
the best way to do this is to recognize their inviolable right to decide for
themselves what is the best way to improve their oikos.
Subsidiarity, therefore, is a way of limiting the power of government and
businesses from becoming unnecessarily and (unethically) expansive to the point
where local communities lose their power for self-determination and turn into
mere puppets of those in power.
If
subsidiarity is violated, local communities will be spoiled instead of helped,
and will bring about more and more problems the bigger government power
becomes. As Michael Novak once wrote: “[A]s the state grows fat, civil society
more and more shrivels, loses its muscle–and energy and motivation… [T]he belly
of the power-seeking state grows bloated from the dependency of more and more
citizens. The more new needs that can be satisfied by the state, the greater
its power swells. And so do its expenses, that is, its debts.”[13]
Subsidiarity
is simply Scruton’s Oikophilia translated into public policy. It ensures
that the local community’s loving attachment to its territory remains the
superior criterion in deciding what happens within that territory instead of
the opinions of outsiders. If we just allow the government to grow bigger and
more detached to the local community, “it (will get) further away from the
people it governs, the latter of whom (will) become practically powerless in
political terms as impenetrable bureaucracies take control of their lives.”[14]
Simply
put, in the situation in Siruma, public servants and politicians would do well
if they give the voice of the people precedence over the voice of
Wanderlust, or whoever is in charge of the operations that interfere with the
day-to-day lives of the local communities. This ensures that the process is
done democratically and properly, giving the lower-order groups sufficient
power to determine what happens in their own home turf.
The Practical Proposal: The “Chester-Novak” Alternative
 |
| From left to right: Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton |
But how is this to be “dragged down”
from the level of principle to the level of concrete practice? In the late-19th
and early-20th century, certain thinkers attempted to do exactly that. In
particular, the French-English historian and writer Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953)
and the English essayist G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) – collectively nicknamed
by George Bernard Shaw as “ChesterBelloc” – aimed to develop a social
philosophy (or, as some would say, an economic theory) which would serve as a
“third way” between the concentration of ownership to statesmen as practiced in
socialism, and what they perceived as the concentration of ownership to a few
rich owners and/or investors in capitalism. The proposal? Instead of
centralizing ownership to a few politicians or to a few rich people, ownership
of productive property (the type of property that can be used to sustain
oneself, either by consuming it/its fruits or by selling them) must be owned locally,
by families and/or workers. In other words, productive property must be
widely owned instead of centralized/concentrated on a few. This theory is
called distributism (or, as some of its advocates would prefer, localism).
Distributism is a social philosophy
based on Catholic Social Teaching, particularly on Pope Leo XIII’s 1891
encyclical Rerum Novarum and, more particularly, on the principle of
subsidiarity, which teaches that the economic life of people should be “one in
which the members and businesses of the local community consider that community
to be their primary sphere of economic activity and where the businesses... are
independently and locally owned and controlled so they can adjust to serve the
needs and wants of that local community.”[15]
The strength of the distributist
philosophy is the empowerment of local communities to be self-sufficient,
thereby not needing (or at least needing only seldomly) the assistance of
outside communities and/or authorities to improve and have a dynamic economic
life. In his book What’s Wrong With the World, Chesterton criticizes big
government (whom he called Hudge) and big business (whom he called Gudge)
and their tendency to take away the sovereignty and democratic capabilities of
the common man (whom he called Jones), by detaching him from his home/oikos,
which Chesterton considers as “the only place of liberty”,[16]
as a place where, supposedly, Hudge and Gudge should be powerless, but because
of the modern world’s obsession with both, has effectively rendered the oikos
as the powerless one instead.
 |
| An example of a Distributist set of Advocacies nationalliberal.org |
A consequence of this line of
reasoning is that, contrary to the common characterization that the
pro-state-centralization tendencies of Hudge (seen by many to be a leftist
agenda) is opposed to the pro-big-business-centralization tendencies of Gudge
(seen by many as a right-wing advocacy), for Chesterton and others like him,
Huge and Gudge are actually very similar. Both are for centralization.
The only difference is on who controls the centralized economy.
Nevertheless, both are anti-oikos. We could say, therefore, that both
Hudge and Gudge are both oikophobic. This is extremely relevant as an
insight, since Wanderlust – the one interfering in San Ramon and Salvacion – is
owned by the Villafuerte family, as admitted by Gov. Lray Villafuerte
himself.[17] Contrary,
therefore, to the common belief that big government and big business are
opposed, there are times when both conspire against the common man, against
Jones, who simply wants to live in his land peacefully and in a self-sufficient
manner.
The goal of distributism for local
communities (especially families) to be self-sufficient is his proposed remedy
for Jones, who has been made economically homeless by Hudge and Gudge. Jones,
who has existentially “lost his address,”[18]
can come back home in a holistic manner – physically, spiritually,
financially, socially, etc. – if he finally lets go of the shackles given to
him by too much government and business interference and gets to establish the
source of his self-actualization and sustenance in his oikos.
This is in line with Catholic Social
Teaching, which urges ownership of productive property to those who have the
capability to do so. Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum, states that “[t]he
law... should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as
possible of the people to become owners.”[19]
St. John Paul II also states in Laborem Exercens:
[P]roperty is
acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This
concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating
these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of
"capital" in opposition to "labour"-and even to practise
exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their
possession… We can (properly) speak of socializing only
when the subject character of society is ensured, that is to say, when on the
basis of his work each person is fully entitled to consider himself a
part-owner of the great workbench at which he is working with every one else. A
way towards that goal could be found by associating labour with the ownership
of capital, as far as possible[20]
Now,
I am not a full-fledged advocate of distributism, particularly many of the
proposed public policies by those who claim to adhere to it.[21]
We also have to acknowledge the fact that our economic lives have drastically
changed since the time of Chesterton and even during the time of St. John Paul
II. For instance, productive property need not be interpreted merely in an
agrarian sense. Productive property can now be associated with more advanced
types of technologies, like laptops and (for an indie musician like me) a midi
keyboard. Also, we should acknowledge the fact that, for many people, working
as employees for other people (for the time being, at least) is a better way of
sustaining themselves and earning just wages than owning their own productive
property. Hence, the qualifier of both Leo XIII and John Paul II in encouraging
people to become owners “as far as possible” should be taken into
account. After all, we can’t force people by law to own productive property if
they don’t want to/if it’s better for them to work for others (for that would
violate the principle of subsidiarity which we described above).[22]
Nevertheless, whatever distributism's faults may be in its proposals regarding
economic policies, this does not negate the strength of its anthropology. I was
only able to visit Siruma once in my entire life, but judging from what I saw
(and the locals can correct me if I’m wrong), its economic activities are still
largely (though not exclusively) land/territory-based. It is known, for
instance, by its beaches and majestic landscapes. So, the agrarian instincts of
early distributist/Chestertonian thinking still applies (at least it seems to
me) significantly to the people there. The strength of the distributist
philosophy, particularly as it pertains to the situation in Siruma, is that the
locals are encouraged to cultivate their own land without unnecessary recourse
to other people who do not belong to that same land.
More
than appealing to the law, therefore, the people of Siruma should thus be
encouraged to self-initiate in regulating their own economic life – not
Hudge, not Gudge – by means of property ownership. Borrowing from philosopher
and theologian Michael Novak, a few of the ways that could be done for this to
work is to “(1) Make the legal incorporation of economic entities low-cost,
quick, and bribe-free. (2) Put in place institutions that support economic
activism and solidarity among human persons… (3) Develop an educational system
that prepares youngsters to start their own businesses, to think creatively
about their economic future, and to learn techniques of success in economic
activities.”[23]
We should also make people realize that the best asset of anybody who wants to
make a living in this day and age is not just any productive property, but intellectual
property. “[W]hat constitutes the essence of (moral) capitalism is the
spirit and practice of creativity: invention, discovery, using one’s head.”[24]
Let us therefore self-initiate in helping our local communities realize that
productive property need not be simply confined to “three acres and a cow,” but
that, in the modern age, productive property can also be one’s ownership of a
desktop and Adobe Photoshop, and that all of this can be done on one’s,
if one is willing and able.
 |
| Michael Novak (1933-2017) nytimes.com |
My
proposal, therefore, is what I would call the Chester-Novak solution,
instead of the traditional ChesterBelloc alternative. It is a way of combining
Chesterton’s social philosophy with Michael Novak’s free-market advocacies. It
tries to ensure that people remain connected and involved, before anything
else, in their oikos (as Chesterton wanted) but allow them to realize
that, in order to do so, we need not work directly in the land to
sustain the land (as Novak advocated for). In this way, even as local
communities engage in the continuing globalization of trade and the means of
production, they do so in the belief that “I’m doing this because I love my
home.” This ensures that the oikos remain the standard as to whether we
must engage with other communities or not. If it improves the locale, then why
not? But if not, then we have all the right in the world to resist it.
Conclusion: The Scouring of the Shire
 |
| Hobbiton Befouled tolkiengateway.net |
In one of the final chapters of The
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King titled The Scouring of the
Shire, after the lead Hobbit characters – Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin –
destroy the ring and finally get back home, they see that their hometown – the
Shire – has been taken over by an industrialist tyrant by the name of
“Sharkey.” What Sharkey did damaged the home of the Hobbits – trees were cut
off, homes were demolished, and Hobbits forced to work under him and are
terrorized by his goons, the Ruffians.
Fortunately for the Hobbits, the four
lead characters have become more courageous than ever before because of their
past adventures involving the destruction of the ring. Besides Frodo, the other
three leading Hobbits, together with their fellow Shire-mates, engage in war
with the Ruffians at the Battle of Bywater. After the war, Sharkey, revealed as
the evil Wizard Saruman, and his right-hand-man, Wormtongue, were also killed.
It’s really weird how, sometimes, life
imitates art. And yet, here we are, in a world where the Shire of Camarines Sur
– Siruma – is taken over by oikophobes who possess no love for the land
and the people who inhabit it.
I, however, won’t advocate for any means that will
lead to bloodshed, unlike what the Hobbits did (unless there are sufficient
reasons to engage in physical self-defense). I am simply asking that our
politicians, our entrepreneurs, and our fellow common men remember that the
word “property” has significant meaning in this discussion. As Chesterton once
said, “Property is merely the art of democracy.”[25]
No property, no democracy. As Belloc puts it in the very first quote above: “If we do not restore
the Institution of Property we cannot escape restoring the Institution of
Slavery; there is no third course”.
It is property, which we infuse with meaning and
sacredness, as Scruton says; which affirms our sovereignty as creatures with
intellect and will and not as mere puppets, as Catholic Social Teaching
affirms; which allows us to generate a realm – a little kingdom of sorts –
wherein we can be our personal kings and queens, as distributism advocates for:
it is this property that must be protected. And with regards those three
things – the Scrutonian, the Catholic/Subsidiarian, and the Distributist –
which group of people accomplished them: those who lived in the land or the
outsiders? I think the answer is pretty clear. As Pope Leo XIII wrote: “Man not only should possess the
fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of
the earth he has to lay by provision for the future.”[26]
May
the current situation in Siruma be resolved peacefully and with proper
consideration to those who consider it their home, with the help of God.
[1] Randall Dagooc’s FB post, February 4, 2026, https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10164479169808410&id=651393409&rdid=NwKR0w8QX8rPH1tz#
[2] Remontados: The Ateneo
de Naga University Debate Society’s FB Post, February 11, 2026, https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1238791371694678&id=100066914793261&rdid=BTJi6wbGeayrYjXr#
[3] Randall Dagooc’s FB Post
[4] Randall Dagooc’s FB
Post, February 10, 2026, https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10164507776298410&id=651393409&rdid=2FuKEIsL6SVjPbSD#
[5] Ibid.
[6] Scruton, R. (2019). How
To Be A Conservative. 19-20, 24-25
[7] Dooley, M. (2009). Roger
Scruton: The Philosopher on Dover Beach. Bloomsbury Publishing. 3-5.
[8] How To Be A
Conservative. 93.
[9] Randall Dagooc’s FB
post, February 4, 2026
[10] uCatholic. (2012,
July 22). Catechism of the Catholic Church #1883. uCatholic. https://ucatholic.com/catechism/1883/
[11] Quadragesimo anno (May 15, 1931) | PIUS XI. (1931, May 14). https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html. 79.
[12] Randall Dagooc’s FB
post, February 4, 2026
[13] Novak, M. (2015). The
Spirit of Democratic Capitalism: Thirty Years Later. The Institute For
Faith, Work & Economics. 23.
[14] Ahlquist, D. (2024). Localism:
Coming Home to Catholic Social Teaching. 144.
[15] Localism. 23.
[16] Ahlquist, D. (2016). G.K.
Chesterton. Ignatius Press. 47.
[17] Asintado sa Radyo, February 9, 2025, https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1F1bRsHmWi/
[18] Ibid. 48.
[19] Rerum Novarum 46 (emphasis added)
[20] Laborem Exercens 14 (emphases added)
[21] The danger of
government-imposed distributism, for instance, is to discourage fair business
growth, which isn’t due to deliberate monopolizing, but due to the simple fact
that it serves the needs of the people better than its competitors, hence
gaining more profits than other businesses.
[22] Horn, T., & Pakaluk,
C. R. (2020). Can a Catholic be a socialist? (the answer is no--here’s why).
Catholic Answers Press. 189-191.
[23] The Spirit of
Democratic Capitalism. 29-30.
[24] Ibid., 17
[25] G.K. Chesterton. 47.
[26] Rerum Novarum 7
Comments
Post a Comment