Tragedy of the Commons

[New Tolerance]

Here's the real one by Garrett Hardin.

dieoff.com/page95.htm
(copy and paste)

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/

This sounds kind of odd, but some quotes make this guy sound like a captialist, while others do not.

What do you have to say about this guy's views? (The quotes are from the second link)

Some quotes by this guy:


Every proposal to build a dam, to widen a highway, to cut down another forest, to turn wetlands into salable real estate, or to bury unwanted waste products is sure to have unintended consequences


A managed commons, though it may have other defects, is not automatically subject to the tragic fate of the unmanaged commons.


Economists (and others) who are satisfied with nature-free equations develop a dangerous hubris about the potency of our species.


Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.


In sharp contrast to privatism, commonism privatizes the gain but commonizes the losses.


Narrow-minded economists emphasize 'production' and virtually ignore what happens to the source of nature's resources, as well as to nature's sink, which has to absorb the unwanted, so-called 'by-produces' or 'production'.


So long as demand increases exponentially, solving a material shortage is impossible.


'Sustainable growth' is an oxymoron.


The maximum is not the optimum.


In sharp contrast to privatism, commonism privatizes the gain but commonizes the losses.

[Shredder]

Capitalists don't attack the tragedy of the commons, they try to use it as an attack, even though capitalism is just the tragedy of the commons institutionalized. I don't think the guy actually has political views exactly, more like he's obsessed with survival vs destruction and tries to fit all of his views of everything under that topic. If he had political views, they would probably lead him down the road to fascism, judging by the survival of the fittest theme coupled with "managed commons" and private property.

Also, I read one of the guy's essays, and it sucked. First of all, he clearly made it up as he went along, because most of the time he isn't talking about anything that has to do with anything else he talked about.

First he describes the tragedy of the commons, where he says that man as a "rational being" will use his "intellect" as nothing more than a tool to "follow his heart" and maximize utility eventually ending in his own destruction. Funny, I always considered following one's heart to be irrational! Especially when one's heart is leading him to his destruction! Can't this "rational" fool (or the others he shares the commons with) predict that adding another cow to the field will kill them all?

And then after like a billion paragraphs, he had finally developed the idea that in order for man to survive, he must have foresight. Apparently I will survive, since I came to the same conclusion like a billion paragraphs ago.

[New Tolerance]

First he describes the tragedy of the commons, where he says that man as a "rational being" will use his "intellect" as nothing more than a tool to "follow his heart" and maximize utility eventually ending in his own destruction. Funny, I always considered following one's heart to be irrational! Especially when one's heart is leading him to his destruction! Can't this "rational" fool (or the others he shares the commons with) predict that adding another cow to the field will kill them all?

Well, I think by that he meant that you will use your intellect to do what you think is the "moral" or the "right" (such as you can't kill another person no matter what the reason), and those goals are emotional rather than logical. (because, why can't you just kill a person? is there some logical justification that proves this?)

[Shredder]

Here is what the author says about the heart:


Values are paramount: it is the role of the Intellect to find a way of achieving what the Heart desires. But the Heart, by definition, can scarcely be expected to be very intellectual; its uninstructed impulses may, in fact, be counterproductive of its goals. The task of Intellect is to examine these impulses and, in its role of faithful executive officer, restructure them productively.

This sounds good. The problem is that he thinks that he's the only one who knows it. My objection was that in the tragedy of the commons, he shows people as myopic slaves to their hearts and calls them "rational beings." But these people aren't using their intellect as an "executive officer restructuring" the wants of the heart... what he actually describes are only "greedy beings." In order to appear smarter, he lowers rational behavior to irrational behavior, and replaces the former region of rational behavior with "ecolate" behavior, which he alone can understand.

And in support that he's on the road to fascism:


When a herd of animals is overpopulated we do not hesitate to liquidate the excess, that is, to kill them. Anyone who speaks of carrying capacity in connection with human population problems is suspected of following the lead of Nazi Germany or contemporary Cambodia. We must not repress this suspicion: We must bring it out into the open so that we can discuss the human predicament frankly.

And while i'm at it, the following is my favorite:


Poverty can be shared, but it is doubtful if wealth can.

Wealth and poverty are the same thing. Mr. Hardin is simply a well-read pessimist.

[New Tolerance]

I makes no sense that captialists can use this theory as an attack. Since this theory points out that too much individual freedom in using natural resources would result in exceeding the carrying capacity and destroy the planet.

too much individual freedom in managing their own economics -> that sounds like captialism to me, not socialism (which regulates economics) of any kind (except for anarchism, but they have that "people becoming enlightened thing"). So shouldn't it be us would should be using this as an attack instead of the captialists?

[Nyder]

New Tolerance,

The tradegy of the commons occurs when there is individual freedom in utilising a commonly owned resource (although there is an extent it could occur under management as well).

Since under capitalism there is private ownership, not communal ownership as in collectivism, this problem would not exist to such a great extent.

So in order to try and avoid the tragedy of the commons under collectivism, you need an enforced management. Hence the total power of the state and dictatorship, as what has happened in every collectivised economic nation so far.

[Osman Ghazi]

Nyder, how many times do I have to tell you? The tragedy of the commons occurred in a mixed economy. It occurred because there was private ownership of the sheep and public ownership of the land. It doesn't apply to socialist economics at all. In fact, the so-called 'communist' nations were actually had their own tragedy of the commmons, like for example in East Germany where they used poor quality surface coal to burn so that they could maximize short-term production. In the long-term however, this decreases long-term output. What would be your incentive to maximize your herd? It would be a lot of hard work and you wouldn't take any personal material gain from it. So why do it?

[Shredder]

They're able to use it to attack communism by magically reducing people to idiot recluses. As I complained earlier in the thread, any sane people sharing the common would enter into agreements to balance power. They would communicate and regulate for mutual interest. Anyone pursuing his own interests against the interests of the majority would then face the wrath of the majority. It wouldn't even require government from above as Nyder tries to insist. It would probably consist of the commoners sharing cattle as well as land, and then scheduling the organization of labor in order to maintain the cows.

Meanwhile under capitalism things like the atmosphere or oceans can't be privatized... and the majority can't balance power because even as a majority of people they have a minority of capital!

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:48 AM
New Tolerance,

The tradegy of the commons occurs when there is individual freedom in utilising a commonly owned resource (although there is an extent it could occur under management as well).

Since under capitalism there is private ownership, not communal ownership as in collectivism, this problem would not exist to such a great extent.

So in order to try and avoid the tragedy of the commons under collectivism, you need an enforced management. Hence the total power of the state and dictatorship, as what has happened in every collectivised economic nation so far.
But the way Mr. Hardin (he sounds like an enviromentalist) put it with the carrying capacity, he's talking about the earth in general. So what if you have private property? you are still using resources that exsists on a finite earth and in the end if there is too much freedom, you will over use (doesn't matter if it's private or public - water is water, there is not an infinite amount of it, just because it's privately owned doesn't change the demand for it, and if the owner only worries about how to better sale his water, instead of looking forward to see if he's tipping the balance, he will overload the carrying capacity and run out).

[Nyder]

Hardin never mentions that the there is private ownership, and no where is there an assumption that anyone actually 'owns' anything.

The tragedy of the commons can be applied to more then sheep, but if you want to run an efficient economy then you can't have everyone share the same sheep or have them take turns grazing it so that it can produce wool or meat. So it involves a cost via the labourer of the shepherd to graze the sheep. If there is no reward system, then the economy will collapse pretty quickly (no one will bother much about producing anything). If there is a reward system, then you will have a tragedy of the commons pretty quickly.

Or if the economy is based around everyone producing so that they can share in each others produce - again you have a tragedy of the commons. For example: If the baker produces bread - then either it's first in, first served or he somehow produces enough to feed everyone in the area (which is quite absurd).

A good example is what if Wal Mart all of a sudden reduced their prices on all their items to $0.00?

[Nyder]

Originally posted by New Tolerance+May 8 2004, 06:30 PM--> (New Tolerance @ May 8 2004, 06:30 PM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 06:48 AM
New Tolerance,

The tradegy of the commons occurs when there is individual freedom in utilising a commonly owned resource (although there is an extent it could occur under management as well).

Since under capitalism there is private ownership, not communal ownership as in collectivism, this problem would not exist to such a great extent.

So in order to try and avoid the tragedy of the commons under collectivism, you need an enforced management. Hence the total power of the state and dictatorship, as what has happened in every collectivised economic nation so far.
But the way Mr. Hardin (he sounds like an enviromentalist) put it with the carrying capacity, he's talking about the earth in general. So what if you have private property? you are still using resources that exsists on a finite earth and in the end if there is too much freedom, you will over use (doesn't matter if it's private or public - water is water, there is not an infinite amount of it, just because it's privately owned doesn't change the demand for it, and if the owner only worries about how to better sale his water, instead of looking forward to see if he's tipping the balance, he will overload the carrying capacity and run out). [/b]
Not exactly. If a capitalist owns a natural resource, will he/she make more money by exploiting it? In the short term, yes, but there will be no long term gains. Also, resources do not only make money by exploitation. A capitalist who owns the Great Barrier Reef or the Amazon rainforest would make a lot of money through tourism, thus giving him/her an incentive to maintain it and improve it.

[New Tolerance]

Not exactly. If a capitalist owns a natural resource, will he/she make more money by exploiting it? In the short term, yes, but there will be no long term gains. Also, resources do not only make money by exploitation. A capitalist who owns the Great Barrier Reef or the Amazon rainforest would make a lot of money through tourism, thus giving him/her an incentive to maintain it and improve it.


wouldn't the same thing happen if it's publicly owned?

[Osman Ghazi]

It's funny because the Tragedy of the Commons is actually more of an attack on capitalism. If you replace the field with the world and the sheep with money, what do you get? A world that is destroyed because people don't have to care about it because they don't own it.

[New Tolerance]

yeh, that's what I'm trying to point out.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 10 2004, 11:18 PM
It's funny because the Tragedy of the Commons is actually more of an attack on capitalism. If you replace the field with the world and the sheep with money, what do you get? A world that is destroyed because people don't have to care about it because they don't own it.
Now you're making things up, since the Tragedy has to do with who has ownership over something.

[Osman Ghazi]

Who has ownership over the skies, or the ocean? No one. So, no one cares if they are polluted and destroyed because they aren't destroying their own property. I would have thought that connection to be obvious but...

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 08:11 PM
Who has ownership over the skies, or the ocean? No one. So, no one cares if they are polluted and destroyed because they aren't destroying their own property. I would have thought that connection to be obvious but...
You are digging your own grave. Read your post again, you are actually arguing in favour of private property. If everyone owns the land, then nobody owns it.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by Hoppe+May 11 2004, 09:41 PM--> (Hoppe @ May 11 2004, 09:41 PM)
Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 08:11 PM
Who has ownership over the skies, or the ocean? No one. So, no one cares if they are polluted and destroyed because they aren't destroying their own property. I would have thought that connection to be obvious but...
You are digging your own grave. Read your post again, you are actually arguing in favour of private property. If everyone owns the land, then nobody owns it. [/b]
Under communism no single person can own land - it is common just as with everything else. I utterly refute your point.

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, under communism you would 'own' the land in a sense. It would just be a collective ownership.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 09:49 PM
Well, under communism you would 'own' the land in a sense. It would just be a collective ownership.
That is nonsense. There are two types of commodities: excludable and non-excludable. A commodity is non-excludable if one person's use of it does not deprive another person of the use of it.

For example: television is non-excludable - me watching a TV show does not prevent someone else from watching the same TV show. Chocolate bars are excludable - if I buy a chocolate bar it deprives someone else of the chocolate bar (as they are finite resources).

Most resources are excludable because they are finite.

What does this have to do with the tragedy of the commons?

The sheep paddock is really a private good, because it is excludable (my use of it deprives others of the resource). Since you get it whether or not you pay for it, it will be used up much faster.

Real World Examples: the food shortages in Cuba (even if there was a trade embargo in the US they could still produce their own food), the food shortages in North Korea, the massive supplies shortages in the USSR, the environmental degradation by China and the USSR, etc..


Bottom line: Communism will never work because of this reason.

[New Tolerance]

The sheep paddock is really a private good, because it is excludable (my use of it deprives others of the resource). Since you get it whether or not you pay for it, it will be used up much faster.

alright, but you will have to somehow make sure that the people don't just violate each other's property, how will you do that? Other than paying taxes and maintaining the state?

[Nyder]

In what context are you talking about, New Tolerance?

I also find it interesting that the lefties appear to have abandoned this topic. Nevertheless I would really like to know their solution to this problem which no economist in the world has been able to figure out - except for the obvious, which is private property.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:49 AM
In what context are you talking about, New Tolerance?

I also find it interesting that the lefties appear to have abandoned this topic. Nevertheless I would really like to know their solution to this problem which no economist in the world has been able to figure out - except for the obvious, which is private property.
I haven't abandoned the topic.

Private Property is a form of regulation, you will have to make sure that no one violates someone else's property, and how can you do that other than by taxing people and maintaining a government? Which then creates a mixed economy.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by New Tolerance+May 23 2004, 07:44 PM--> (New Tolerance @ May 23 2004, 07:44 PM)
[email protected] 23 2004, 10:49 AM
In what context are you talking about, New Tolerance?

I also find it interesting that the lefties appear to have abandoned this topic. Nevertheless I would really like to know their solution to this problem which no economist in the world has been able to figure out - except for the obvious, which is private property.
I haven't abandoned the topic.

Private Property is a form of regulation, you will have to make sure that no one violates someone else's property, and how can you do that other than by taxing people and maintaining a government? Which then creates a mixed economy. [/b]
You don't need a Government to protect private property. In fact even in mixed economies, most property protection is done by private security. The police simply don't have the resources to protect everybody's property.

So your assumption is empirically incorrect.

[New Tolerance]

You don't need a Government to protect private property. In fact even in mixed economies, most property protection is done by private security. The police simply don't have the resources to protect everybody's property.

So your assumption is empirically incorrect.


Private security eh? Are you talking about security guards that guard banks? or just normal middle class people armed with guns?

We have those, and people get robbed anyways, and after they get robbed, I have never heard of alot of people going after the robbers single-handedly and try to get their stuff back. Most report it to the police, and they want this. (and the same goes for the robbed banks too, I've never heard of banks hiring a gang to go after the robber and get the money back, they too think it's in their interest to report the incidient to the police) Do you think that these people report things to the police because they are stupid? (If this is the case, then are you saying that the guy should actually risk his life by going after the armed robber single-handedly and try to get his stuff back)

The point: You can use private property as a preventive measure to defend yourself during the incidient, but should that fail (and alot of them do fail), you need to report to the police to get good results, especially if you are just a middle class person who doesn't have the money to hire security guards.

And suppose you get invaded by another country? What are you going to do? Hire a swarm of security guards? I doubt that can stand up to a modern professional army.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by Nyder+May 19 2004, 05:49 AM--> (Nyder @ May 19 2004, 05:49 AM)
Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 09:49 PM
Well, under communism you would 'own' the land in a sense. It would just be a collective ownership.
That is nonsense. There are two types of commodities: excludable and non-excludable. A commodity is non-excludable if one person's use of it does not deprive another person of the use of it.

For example: television is non-excludable - me watching a TV show does not prevent someone else from watching the same TV show. Chocolate bars are excludable - if I buy a chocolate bar it deprives someone else of the chocolate bar (as they are finite resources).

Most resources are excludable because they are finite.
[/b]
This definition is incorrect. You're confusing 'rival' and 'excludable'. If something is excludable you can prevent others from consuming it, if something is rival, one person's consumption prevents others from consuming it.

Cable television is non-rival but excludable.

A lighthouse is non-rival and non-excludable.

A city street is non-rival(up to the point of congestion) and non-excludable.

A candy bar is rival and excludable.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by percept¡on+May 24 2004, 03:01 PM--> (percept¡on @ May 24 2004, 03:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:49 AM

Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 09:49 PM
Well, under communism you would 'own' the land in a sense. It would just be a collective ownership.
That is nonsense. There are two types of commodities: excludable and non-excludable. A commodity is non-excludable if one person's use of it does not deprive another person of the use of it.

For example: television is non-excludable - me watching a TV show does not prevent someone else from watching the same TV show. Chocolate bars are excludable - if I buy a chocolate bar it deprives someone else of the chocolate bar (as they are finite resources).

Most resources are excludable because they are finite.

This definition is incorrect. You're confusing 'rival' and 'excludable'. If something is excludable you can prevent others from consuming it, if something is rival, one person's consumption prevents others from consuming it.

Cable television is non-rival but excludable.

A lighthouse is non-rival and non-excludable.

A city street is non-rival(up to the point of congestion) and non-excludable.

A candy bar is rival and excludable. [/b]
That is correct but it still doesn't change the point I was trying to make.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 24 2004, 02:13 PM

You don't need a Government to protect private property. In fact even in mixed economies, most property protection is done by private security. The police simply don't have the resources to protect everybody's property.

So your assumption is empirically incorrect.


Private security eh? Are you talking about security guards that guard banks? or just normal middle class people armed with guns?

We have those, and people get robbed anyways, and after they get robbed, I have never heard of alot of people going after the robbers single-handedly and try to get their stuff back. Most report it to the police, and they want this. (and the same goes for the robbed banks too, I've never heard of banks hiring a gang to go after the robber and get the money back, they too think it's in their interest to report the incidient to the police) Do you think that these people report things to the police because they are stupid? (If this is the case, then are you saying that the guy should actually risk his life by going after the armed robber single-handedly and try to get his stuff back)

The point: You can use private property as a preventive measure to defend yourself during the incidient, but should that fail (and alot of them do fail), you need to report to the police to get good results, especially if you are just a middle class person who doesn't have the money to hire security guards.

And suppose you get invaded by another country? What are you going to do? Hire a swarm of security guards? I doubt that can stand up to a modern professional army.
Crime will always exist all you can do is try and reduce its impact.

The police are not the only ones that can perform the functions that you describe. In fact the resources of the police are limited by public spending.

As for invasion, an armed civilian population could be just as effective as soldiers defending their property. Modern technology has kind of made that redundant, though.

I'm still undecided as to whether a collective military force is truly needed. It may be more effective because of the economy of scale but a monopoly on force is dangerous and leads to the state. I won't argue on this point as I am not sure.

[New Tolerance]

As for invasion, an armed civilian population could be just as effective as soldiers defending their property. Modern technology has kind of made that redundant, though.

I'm still undecided as to whether a collective military force is truly needed. It may be more effective because of the economy of scale but a monopoly on force is dangerous and leads to the state. I won't argue on this point as I am not sure.

Alright.

'Cause I'm also an anarchist, and one of the main reasons I'm not really a captialist is because I don't really see how they can decisively address the problems of security. (That's why I asked, just thought you might have some ideas)