Comments on: The Tragedy Of The Tragedy Of The Commons http://jontillman.com/2006/07/01/the_tragedy_of_the_tragedy_of_the_commons/ part of the problem since 1976 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:04:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: andrew http://jontillman.com/2006/07/01/the_tragedy_of_the_tragedy_of_the_commons/#comment-4181 andrew Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:26:24 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/07/the_tragedy_of_the_tragedy_of_the_commons.html#comment-4181 I think Jon is clear in his description: that there are other ways to manage a resource in a cooperative and mutually beneficial way. It is becoming increasingly normal in our society to determine that the only alternative to communal disagreement or problem is privatization, whereas Hardin's reference to morality means taking responsibility for a shared resource, at least on a small scale. For example, herders in the pasture recognize the limits of a finite resource and self regulate without having to go through the destructive process of a "prisoner's dilemma" - or relearning over and over - to reach a fair conclusion. At the same time, it is ownership by a group that although it has its own problems, keeps control and benefits locally, profits are shared equitably and the process is hopefully transparent. This seems to be a lesson Hardin is aiming for. I think Jon is clear in his description: that there are other ways to manage a resource in a cooperative and mutually beneficial way. It is becoming increasingly normal in our society to determine that the only alternative to communal disagreement or problem is privatization, whereas Hardin’s reference to morality means taking responsibility for a shared resource, at least on a small scale. For example, herders in the pasture recognize the limits of a finite resource and self regulate without having to go through the destructive process of a “prisoner’s dilemma” - or relearning over and over - to reach a fair conclusion. At the same time, it is ownership by a group that although it has its own problems, keeps control and benefits locally, profits are shared equitably and the process is hopefully transparent. This seems to be a lesson Hardin is aiming for.

]]> By: Jon http://jontillman.com/2006/07/01/the_tragedy_of_the_tragedy_of_the_commons/#comment-3164 Jon Tue, 08 May 2007 09:20:21 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/07/the_tragedy_of_the_tragedy_of_the_commons.html#comment-3164 I believe that you are misunderstanding, perhaps deliberately, the point of the article. The lat paragraph: <blockquote>Hardin advocates exactly the solution to the “tragedy” that pastoralist societies had long relied on; “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon”. This is a far cry from the Lockean principle of homesteading as a means of dividing the commons into private parcels.</blockquote> spells it out pretty explicitly. There are a multiplicity of possible ways to govern severally owned property, and turning all of it into singly owned property is not the only, or best, way to do so, per se. I believe that you are misunderstanding, perhaps deliberately, the point of the article.

The lat paragraph:

Hardin advocates exactly the solution to the “tragedy” that pastoralist societies had long relied on; “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon”. This is a far cry from the Lockean principle of homesteading as a means of dividing the commons into private parcels.

spells it out pretty explicitly. There are a multiplicity of possible ways to govern severally owned property, and turning all of it into singly owned property is not the only, or best, way to do so, per se.

]]> By: Rich Paul http://jontillman.com/2006/07/01/the_tragedy_of_the_tragedy_of_the_commons/#comment-3160 Rich Paul Tue, 08 May 2007 04:23:30 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/07/the_tragedy_of_the_tragedy_of_the_commons.html#comment-3160 So his solution is that people should beat each other up when they feel that they are over-consuming? That is, indeed, a far cry from anything sane people would recommend. Much better for one person to buy the property, compensating each member of the group which formerly owned it, and to take responsibility for maintaining it and governing access to it, charging each user an amount proportional to his use. This way resources consumed are paid for by those that consume them, maintenance is guaranteed (unless the new owner wants to lose his investment), and people are not limited to an arbitrary level of production. They can produce as much as they like, they are just charged for the consumption implied by their production. So his solution is that people should beat each other up when they feel that they are over-consuming? That is, indeed, a far cry from anything sane people would recommend. Much better for one person to buy the property, compensating each member of the group which formerly owned it, and to take responsibility for maintaining it and governing access to it, charging each user an amount proportional to his use. This way resources consumed are paid for by those that consume them, maintenance is guaranteed (unless the new owner wants to lose his investment), and people are not limited to an arbitrary level of production. They can produce as much as they like, they are just charged for the consumption implied by their production.

]]>