The Tragedy of the Commons

[epsilon8998]

Getting into a number of debates with various capitalists has caused me to come into conflict with their argument that "The Tragedy of the Commons" is an inevitable occurrence with all government owned projects.

One such capitalist attempted to use the BP oil spill as one example, trying to claim that if the government had allowed BP to own the land or waters beneath the rig, then they would have taken more precautions in the long run because it would be in their "interest" to do so.

I tried explaining to him that this wouldn't have made a difference, because BP and all capitalist firms like it are driven to try to maximize their short-term profits to secure themselves against immediate market failure, because what happens 10 years down the line in one market won't matter if their profits are not high enough to keep them in business in the first 1 or 5 years, for example. This didn't phase him, however, and he still insisted, however, that companies would do so anyway.

Frustrated, I dropped out of the argument after it started to get really heated. But I can't help but wonder, are there any empirical examples to show that the Tragedy of the Commons is false, especially with the case with BP?

[ArrowLance]

Getting into a number of debates with various capitalists has caused me to come into conflict with their argument that "The Tragedy of the Commons" is an inevitable occurrence with all government owned projects.

Oh goody, I love this.


One such capitalist attempted to use the BP oil spill as one example, trying to claim that if the government had allowed BP to own the land or waters beneath the rig, then they would have taken more precautions in the long run because it would be in their "interest" to do so.

Hardly, what interest does BP have in the water or land, they just want the oil.


I tried explaining to him that this wouldn't have made a difference, because BP and all capitalist firms like it are driven to try to maximize their short-term profits to secure themselves against immediate market failure, because what happens 10 years down the line in one market won't matter if their profits are not high enough to keep them in business in the first 1 or 5 years, for example. This didn't phase him, however, and he still insisted, however, that companies would do so anyway.

What he says is somewhat accurate but the BP example fails because they have no interest other than the oil.


Frustrated, I dropped out of the argument after it started to get really heated. But I can't help but wonder, are there any empirical examples to show that the Tragedy of the Commons is false, especially with the case with BP?

The problem isn't so much with the Tragedy of the Commons itself in many cases but what some people apply it to. But for some authority you can look into Elinor Ostrom's works on the subject, as she won a Nobel Prize (in a joint prize with Oliver E. Williamson) in economics (the first woman to do so I believe) on the subject.

[Broletariat]

I think the AFAQ site covers Tragedy of the Commons quite well
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI6.html

[mikelepore]

Under capitalism, if a company converts to newer methods, because those newer methods are safer for the environment, safer for the workers, or safer for the consumers, guess who has to pay for the new equipment. The company has to pay for it. Therefore each company is materially motivated not to change methods if they can continue to conduct business by using already-established methods.

In a socialist economy, if the people in an industry know about a safer method that can be used, and decide to convert over to it, that industry would NOT have to pay anything for the new equipment. The machinery, supplies, energy, etc. used by the industry would be allocated at higher lever, either by a national government or a world government. The allocation of resources from a much more encompassing level would relieve the local operations of any economic pressure to avoid socially-beneficial tooling conversions.

Of course, any conception of "socialism" that would have economically independent worker-owned cooperatives, instead of having a centralized allocation of all resources, would have exactly the same problem that today's capitalism has -- a continuous pressure to use less of "one's own" resources, and the effect of that pressure on decision-making. The problem can only be solved by high-level allocation of resources.

Unfortunately, on this web site, I typically make the case for such a centralized allocation of resources for industry, but then many other people who habit of calling for "decentralization" immediately reject my suggestion without thinking through the details of what is necessary to get each industry the resources that it needs to operate.

[epsilon8998]

I think the AFAQ site covers Tragedy of the Commons quite well

That whole webpage is one huge tl/dr lol. Jk :P. I'll get around to reading it later. Any chance you could summarize some of it for me? What are its main points and evidence?

[Broletariat]

That whole webpage is one huge tl/dr lol. Jk :P. I'll get around to reading it later. Any chance you could summarize some of it for me? What are its main points and evidence?


The first bit talks about how Tragedy of the Commons was merely a thought experiment with no historical or empirical evidence. How rational decisions in isolation become irrational in collectivism so you can't transfer them directly because people have common sense. How what Hardin generally refers to is not communal property, but unmanaged free-for-all property.