Star Trek

In another thread, a citation was made to the idea pronounced by many that is summed up by the phrase "the tragedy of the commons".  This concept is often invoked by conservatives who argue for a privatization of lands and resources that were once held in common. I have always thought that this phrase is highly evocative and points to a definite problem in modern day society. However, I think conservatives get it wrong in how they think of this problem.

Below are links to two articles that touch on this conept. These are closer to representing how I view the "tragedy of the commons".

http://www.citizenrenaissance.com/2009/10/29/debunking-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/

One of the final myths holding us back from a much needed updating of corporate-consumer-growth-capitalism has now been debunked with Professor Elinor Ostrom becoming the first woman to win the Nobel Prize for Economics.

Ostrom’s work won the prize for the way it debunks The Tragedy of the Commons which has long been used as a crucial shibboleth of free-market neoliberal capitalism to insist that there are no alternatives to privatization and markets in generating wealth and human well being.

Her win is all the more notable as many past winners, such as Milton Friedman , have been staunch proponents of free-market neoliberal economics. Ostrom now joins others, such as Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz, in the roll-call of Nobel winners who are calling for a radically updated form of capitalism.

Importantly, Ostrom’s work greatly boosts the legitimacy of the commons as a framework for solving our social and environmental problems. Along with a move to beyond-growth economics, the development of a commons framework which sets resources aside from the short-term interests of both politics and business, is a vital ingredient in solutions to the problems we discuss in Citizen Renaissance. Such a framework has most famously been articulated by Peter Barnes in his book Capitalism 3.0.

Ostrom has tirelessly documented how communities around the world use cooperative behaviour to manage common resources – grazing lands, forests, irrigation waters, soils, fisheries – equitably and sustainably over the long term.

Columbia University Nobel winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz commented, “Conservatives used the Tragedy of the Commons to argue for property rights, and that efficiency was achieved as people were thrown off the commons… What Ostrom has demonstrated is the existence of social control mechanisms that regulate the use of the commons without having to resort to property rights.”

Ostrom says “When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other’s use of the land, developing rules for behaviour. It is an area that standard market theory does not touch. What we have ignored is what citizens can do and the importance of real involvement of the people”.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the tragedy of the commons. At present, they are open to all, without limit. The parks themselves are limited in extent--there is only one Yosemite Valley--whereas population seems to grow without limit. The values that visitors seek in the parks are steadily eroded. Plainly, we must soon cease to treat the parks as commons or they will be of no value to anyone.

What shall we do? We have several options. We might sell them off as private property. We might keep them as public property, but allocate the right to enter them. The allocation might be on the basis of wealth, by the use of an auction system. It might be on the basis of merit, as defined by some agreed-upon standards. It might be by lottery. Or it might be on a first-come, first-served basis, administered to long queues. These, I think, are all the reasonable possibilities. They are all objectionable. But we must choose--or acquiesce in the destruction of the commons that we call our National Parks.

In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream--whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons

While Amartya Sen may advocate alternatives to privatization, he contradicts himself in doing so. He's demonstrated through his books that starvation is not the result of production problem - indeed we have the knowledge to produce vast amounts of food for the entire world (the method is called Agaimo) - but rather a problem of access (the lack of private property). Most of the people starving throughout the world use to be farmers. But bankers, operating through the World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, and The Federal Reserve, give huge loans to third world governments, knowing these loans will never be paid back and that interest (profit) on those loans will be indefinite. (Any government is unlikely to pay back its loans, because it means raising taxes on the people. Taxes can only go so high before the people revolt.) So instead, these third world governments throw farmers off their land, and effectively nationalize the land to grow export crops just to pay the interest on those loans.

Ostrom says “When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other’s use of the land, developing rules for behaviour. It is an area that standard market theory does not touch.

Free market theory, especially Austrian Economics, does indeed account for long-term perspective with a strict adherence to private property rights. "Developing rules for behavior" is another way of describing customary law from which private property rights extend. Free market theory does not assume everyone will have a long-term perspective, but it asserts that short-term and long-term minded individuals will be present within the market. A strict adherence to private property rights would hold an owner accountable for polluting a river upstream of his neighbor as said pollution would then be destroying the neighbor's private property. Government rulings on eminant domain for the general welfare have gradually eroded away this aspect of private property.... and so factories can dump toxic sludge into rivers without accountability b/c they provide a service to the "general welfare"... then the factory owners are later condemned for the wiggle room afforded them by government. Not mentioned is the government's intervention in the market whereby eminant domain is established and unlimited financial penalities via private lawsuit is removed.

The ocean affords another example. The ocean isn't under private ownership, and as a result we see overfishing. The Japanese overhunt whales, sharks, and dolphins... Industrial Countries overfish offshore of Africa, which has indirectly caused a rise in piracy. The pirates use to be fisherman, but turned to piracy when their waters were overfished by foreigners and were left nothing... so they resort to stealing. This could be solved with privatization of the oceans. If fisherman had to pay an "ocean owner" for what they took out, as opposed to taking the fish for free, then overfishing would decrease dramatically. Additionally, customary laws would develop amongst "ocean owners" to settle disputes that originate from such issues as migrational patterns of ocean dwelling animals.

lostshaker: While Amartya Sen may advocate alternatives to privatization, he contradicts himself in doing so. He's demonstrated through his books that starvation is not the result of production problem - indeed we have the knowledge to produce vast amounts of food for the entire world (the method is called Agaimo) - but rather a problem of access (the lack of private property). Most of the people starving throughout the world use to be farmers. But bankers, operating through the World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, and The Federal Reserve, give huge loans to third world governments, knowing these loans will never be paid back and that interest (profit) on those loans will be indefinite. (Any government is unlikely to pay back its loans, because it means raising taxes on the people. Taxes can only go so high before the people revolt.) So instead, these third world governments throw farmers off their land, and effectively nationalize the land to grow export crops just to pay the interest on those loans.

caltrek: I don't know that much about Sen's total body of work, but otherwise I pretty much agree with the analysis you put forth in the above cited paragraph.

Ostrom says “When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other’s use of the land, developing rules for behaviour. It is an area that standard market theory does not touch.

lostshaker: Free market theory, especially Austrian Economics, does indeed account for long-term perspective with a strict adherence to private property rights. "Developing rules for behavior" is another way of describing customary law from which private property rights extend. Free market theory does not assume everyone will have a long-term perspective, but it asserts that short-term and long-term minded individuals will be present within the market. A strict adherence to private property rights would hold an owner accountable for polluting a river upstream of his neighbor as said pollution would then be destroying the neighbor's private property. Government rulings on eminant domain for the general welfare have gradually eroded away this aspect of private property.... and so factories can dump toxic sludge into rivers without accountability b/c they provide a service to the "general welfare"... then the factory owners are later condemned for the wiggle room afforded them by government.

caltrek: "Holding an owner accountable" is a government function. It also benefits the "general welfare".

That clauses like "general welfare" are going to be give the Orwellian treatment of meaning the opposite of what they originally were intended to mean is a sad fact of life. You are right to point out specific instances of that happening. Still, that does not negate the value of a concept like "general welfare". Especially when it is linked to another concept like "legitimate". 

lostshaker: Not mentioned is the government's intervention in the market whereby eminant domain is established and unlimited financial penalities via private lawsuit is removed.

caltrek:  Yet, you want private property owners to be held "accountable". How would you do that with out some mechanism such as a fine or other seizure of property? 

lostshaker: The ocean affords another example. The ocean isn't under private ownership, and as a result we see overfishing. The Japanese overhunt whales, sharks, and dolphins... Industrial Countries overfish offshore of Africa, which has indirectly caused a rise in piracy. The pirates use to be fisherman, but turned to piracy when their waters were overfished by foreigners and were left nothing... so they resort to stealing. This could be solved with privatization of the oceans. If fisherman had to pay an "ocean owner" for what they took out, as opposed to taking the fish for free, then overfishing would decrease dramatically. Additionally, customary laws would develop amongst "ocean owners" to settle disputes that originate from such issues as migrational patterns of ocean dwelling animals.

caltrek:  Who would such an "ocean owner" be if not the government?

Not even Bill Gates can afford to own an entire ocean.

I suppose an IPO could be issued to buy the ocean, but what if polluters end up owning a majority of the voting stock shares?

How would such "customary laws" be enforced if not by government?

Perhaps an explication of what you mean by "customary laws" is in order.

 caltrek: "Holding an owner accountable" is a government function. It also benefits the "general welfare".

No. The Constitution isn’t specific as to how individuals are held accountable, only that contracts will be upheld and private property ensured. And I agree such Constitutionally granted functions would benefit the “general Welfare”. But holding individuals accountable through government force and coercion works against the general Welfare when better solutions can be found in the free market.

For example, let’s assume the Court, acting as an official and legitimate means of arbitration, rules against an individual for having violated another individual’s private property. Currently, government imposes fines or seizes by force the offender’s holdings for repayment. Comparatively, in a free market, the Court could post its ruling, permitting constituents within the market to act in accordance with customary law. If the offender pays for damages, all is great and order is upheld. If the offender refuses to pay for damages, thereby ignoring the arbitrator he previously agreed upon, peripheral constituents (those outside of the defender and being aware of the Court’s ruling in favor of the dependent) may voluntarily withhold or deny their goods and services (private property) from the offender until he capitulates and alters his behavior to abide by customary law. This is using peer pressure in a constructive manner.

That clauses like "genreal welfare" are going to be given the Orwellian treatment of meaning the opposite of what they originally were intended to mean is a sad fact of life. You are right to point out specific instances of that happening. Still, that does not negate the value of a concept like "general welfare". Especially when it is linked to another concept like "legitimate". 

Perhaps the fact that clauses like “general Welfare” will be misconstrued, as can be predicted with the anti-Federalist having predicted it, should be grounds for omission or specification. Madison, in the Federalist Papers, did specify the “general Welfare” refers only to those Powers listed under Article I, Section 8., yet many have not adhered to that specification as predicted by the anti-federalists. This also represents how customary law lends itself to concrete experiences and realistic expectations while legislative law lends itself to abstraction and unintended consequences.

caltrek:  Yet, you want private property owners to be held "accountable". How would you do that with out some mechanism such as a fine or other seizure of property? 

Answer rovided above and on the “Greedy… Evil Republicans” thread. Perhaps we can combine further related responses onto this thread.

caltrek:  Who would such an "ocean owner" be if not the government?

Not even Bill Gates can afford to own an entire ocean.

I suppose an IPO could be issued to buy the ocean, but what if polluters end up owning a majority of the voting stock shares?

How would such "customary laws" be enforced if not by government?

Perhaps an explication of what you mean by "customary laws" is in order.

Same answer as above.

Mr Rusty,

Good post. The only thing you might have overlooked is the postivie affect of greater technological sophistication. Such sophistication allows for a more rational sustainable use of available resources. Still, your points about the effects of continued population growth are well taken. It is a real question as to whether new technologies can be adapted fast enough and with enough positive effect to avoid the kind of collapse that you point to as inevitable. A question that I can't answer one way or another with great confidence.