Re: What's Wrong With America?

Matthew Scott wrote:

Islander wrote:

Matthew Scott wrote:

Islander wrote:
The classic example is a field owned by the town and available to everyone for grazing their livestock. The field is certain to be overgrazed by individuals seeking to optimize their profit. Overall, everyone loses due to the shortsighted profit motive of the individual.

The classic example of the tragedy of the commons goes back to medieval times, as you describe, which is what I was referring to, not some tortured twist to make it appear communistic, although it can certainly be so interpreted.

If Hardin and Barnes, et al, are redefining the phrase to mean something totally different, that's OK, but it would in my mind be preferable to invent a new phrase or buzz word, rather than re-defining a concept which is still viable. This is my major objection to Niall Ferguson's characterizations of the "new American empire", as defined by him, not conforming to the classical definition of empire and empirical actions.

If, in the modern usage, commons is defined as you have indicated, we might as well all commit suicide immediately, since by the mere act of breathing we are polluting the commons. (See carbon dioxide and its contribution to global warming).

The whole modern concept seems to be based on the idea of "collective ownership", whether it be oil, air, water, or fish, etc. Since none of these collective goods are unique to any area or nation, there would have to be world-wide agreement and enforcement of the controls Barnes envisions. And thus the classic example of the problem of the commons rises yet again.

Hardin's work was published in 1968 and while his example might be construed to apply to medieval times, it is the principle that is important.

As Barnes points out in his book, there are examples of successful protection of the commons that are local rather than global. The Nature Conservancy, for example, acts locally to achieve global objectives.

It is on this point that Barnes asserts that the solution will not be found in government intervention. He advocates private action involving government only in the enforcement of legal trusts.

Implicit in Barnes' assertion is the principle of ownership. I don't agree that "ownership" of common resources (as defined by him) is in any way as clear cut as his assertion assumes. Absent such a principle, his assertion is meaningless feel-goodism.

His ideas are fodder for an interesting intellectual exercise, but have zero practical application.

I find it curious that you find it necessary to discount this so quickly when there are working, practical examples already in existence. Are you threatened by the notion that capitalism might have to start paying it's way? Do you need to reject any idea that might be needed to prevent the abuses of the free market?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats Wrong With America?
    ... And thus the classic example of the problem of the commons rises yet again. ... Implicit in Barnes' assertion is the principle of ownership. ... I don't agree that "ownership" of common resources is in any way as clear cut as his assertion assumes. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Whats Wrong With America?
    ... And thus the classic example of the problem of the commons rises yet again. ... Implicit in Barnes' assertion is the principle of ownership. ... I don't agree that "ownership" of common resources is in any way as clear cut as his assertion assumes. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >>> Real commons were considered joint, common, ... you can tell the difference between communal ownership and no ... >> What you cannot do is plagiarise my speech. ... that is plagiarism. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... you can tell the difference between communal ownership and no ... the commons were soon after ... to have authored it, that is plagiarism. ... If beer is taken, less beer remains. ...
    (comp.programming)