4 ms·
"Tragedy of the Commons" is caused by the very existence of the modern state. No, you have it backwards. The "tragedy" was a fiction invented to justify the Ac
by iainmerrick 9y ago
"Tragedy of the Commons" is caused by the very existence of the modern state.
No, you have it backwards. The "tragedy" was a fiction invented to justify the Acts of Enclosure in the UK, wherein public land (commons) was fenced off for sole use by the local lords.
Here's a good explanation: http://www.monbiot.com/1994/01/01/the-tragedy-of-enclosure/ http://www.monbiot.com/1994/01/01/the-tragedy-of-enclosure/
In a truly private system, one in which all land was owned, every parcel of land would have some advocate who cared very deeply about the environmental quality of their land.
OK, here are two counterpoints:
First, if land is held in common, everybody has a share of ownership, including people who actually live there and therefore really do care deeply about the environmental quality.
Second, just look at the recent stories about Toys'R'Us. It was purchased in a leveraged buyout in 2005 -- meaning the buyers paid relatively little and the company was saddled with a massive debt. By your argument, wouldn't those new owners care deeply about the long-term health of the company? Instead they extracted as much cash as possible and left behind a bankrupt shell. I think the analogy to private land is pretty clear.
- crimsonalucard 9y agoYour article says Hardins theory only works if their is no such thing as ownership. A commons is a piece of land supposedly used commonly and not owned by anyone. So Hardins theory is addressing tthings like the ocean and the air. This article might as well be rebutting the theory of gravity because it only applies to objects with mass.
- iainmerrick 9y agoSo Hardins theory is addressing tthings like the ocean and the air. No, Hardin himself intended his theory to address land usage; it's this article that argues the theory doesn't actually work properly in that context.
- crimsonalucard 9y agoiainmerrick. You are completely and utterly incorrect. Read hardins original article. Hardin is addressing Everything that is "common." I can prove it to you. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full This is the original article by Hardin. Ctrl-F oceans. Then Ctrl-F pollution. You will see that Hardin directly references pollution and oceans as commons. If you read the entire article you will see that he talks about population control more than he talks about land.
- crimsonalucard 9y agoActually to be honest. Hardins article is beautiful. It addresses the theory of the commons in its entirety and it also addresses putting the commons under regulation. The writing, scope and sophistication to the topic is wider in Hardins original article. The rebuttal you've submitted is actually not well done, it's almost as if the author (and yourself as well) didn't read Hardins original article in its entirety.
- iainmerrick 9y agoI agree, the Hardin article is terrific. There are at least three categories, not just two (as Hardin clearly explains): common ownership, nationalized ownership, and private ownership. The Monbiot article argues that common ownership doesn't necessarily mean a destructive free-for-all; often the people who actually live in a certain land do a good job of looking after it. As for private ownership, free market fans tend to assume this is the best approach, but individual owners aren't always incentivized to make the best long-term use of land. I don't think Monbiot is entirely against Hardin, he's saying more that Hardin is being misread as a justification for private ownership of land only. (I don't think Hardin takes a position on private vs nationalized; he's only concerned with commons vs owned.)