6 ms·

Silence Is a Commons (1983)

127 points by cardamomo 6y ago

tomcam 6y ago
So is the night sky.
- andai 6y ago
  That was my first thought as well. What did we lose when we lost the stars? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25969823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25969823
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ktpsns 6y ago
Interesting article. Here's a point of critique: I think highways and motorways are still commons –– At least in countries where their maintenance is paid by state money, ie. where they are not private roads. This is the classical argument of having the state in charge of providing the infrastructure (such as streets, but also water, electricity or fast internet). Here in Germany, privatisation of infrastructure is a frequent point of discussion and anger. From my point of view, this is the modern equivalent of the "commons become [...]" discussion, where [...] is now more like "bought by private companies" then "productive ressources".
- Talanes 6y ago
  Which countries do not require licensing to use their roads?
  - n4r9 6y ago
    > Before [enclosure], most of the environment had been considered as commons from which most people could draw most of their sustenance without needing to take recourse to the market. I think this is the point. Not that the resource is completely unregulated, but that the common person can benefit from it without constantly having to compete in the market.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      I wouldn't consider simple regulation an enclosing of the commons, but when you add on to the need to invest capital in the form of vehicle registration fees and license fees, it starts to become more enclosed.
  - bloak 6y ago
    England? You need a licence to drive certain motor vehicles but even that doesn't, I think, though I may be wrong here, have anything to do with roads, in that you'd need the same licence to drive the same motor vehicle in any public place. Not that there are many non-road public places where you would be allowed to drive a motor vehicle. A few beaches, perhaps?
    - chriswarbo 6y ago
      Nope. All UK road users must follow the Highway Code (although that code is different in Northern Ireland). From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction > This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone. > The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders. > Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. > Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
      - quietbritishjim 6y ago
        You're saying that all road users, even pedestrians and cyclists, have to obey the highway code. But the parent comment never stated otherwise. They said that only certain types of vehicles need to be licenced. They seem to be referring to road tax, rather than MOT which is closer to a licence, but either way they're correct (albeit being a bit pedantic with the GP comment).
- C4stor 6y ago
  I think you're missing the point (or maybe it's me !). Commons in the article are something that nobody owns, not even the state. It's something that is there, that is used, that is part of the local culture and used in a shared way without any sense of ownership. Saying the state owns the roads is fine, but it still strips from the community the possibility to do whatever with it. I don't think the article talks about privatisation, but rather talks about ownership, and more importantly, about lack of ownership. In a capitalist world, something owned by noone quickly get a flag planted in it saying "this is mine" by some organisation. And that how you transform public space, plant species, spectrum frequencies, ...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The roads are still not commons. Their use is regulated by the State and they are owned by the State. It's certainly much closer to the commons than private property for profit, but it's not quite it.
- michael1999 6y ago
  Try and hold a birthday party on this so-called "commons".
FriedrichN 6y ago
I fear we're way past any form of commons, from land, sea, air, space, even radio wave frequencies are sliced up, sold, paid for and controlled. Even when stepping in 'nature', it's governed by laws that state what you can and can't do. I can't think of a thing we don't regulate and I don't think that'll ever go away.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  These laws and regulations are about protecting the commons. You're prevented from polluting on public land so that it remains usable by others into the future; you can't just set up a high powered transmitter and jam everyone because then all the other radio equipment sharing that space would stop working. If you want to operate a boat on the open water above a certain size, you need the proper lights to ensure that everyone is safe out there. The tragedy of the commons would be if these things weren't enforced so that the various commons descended into anarchy and a dumping ground for externalities.
  - FriedrichN 6y ago
    I'm not saying we shouldn't protect the environment, control air space, restrict the use of radio frequencies, etc. I'm merely stating that, for better or worse, true unregulated commons no longer exist. Any hunter gatherers that still exist are merely tolerated.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      But how unregulated were the commons? If you were to somehow destroy the commons that the community relies on, would you get away with it? There was always some breaks on outright maniacs, even if it was just getting lynched.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The commons were regulated communally, yes. They weren't regulated with state power. In a sense, it really was anarchy - but an anarchy that worked.
motohagiography 6y ago
One of Illich's most important ideas was the "Radical Monopoly," using cars in cities as an example, where the car operates as a monopoly technology, dominating what was previously a commons. The only way to rebel against it was to walk and ride bicycles, even though your participation in cities in these modes would be less efficient, higher risk, and generally inferior to that of using a car. And yet, just in the last 25 years people inspired by Illich who were cyclists and pedestrians formed movements (also using the ideas of Jane Jacobs) for walkable cities and neighbourhoods, and bike lanes. I think these movements have had some success re-establishing a new commons carved out of the one dominated by cars. I think the internet, and the internet giants form one of these radical monopolies. The equivalent to being a cyclist 25 years ago but on the internet today would be using things like BSD or linux, Pinephones, Matrix, DDG, and in particular, it would mean largely eschewing the browser as a means for entertainment. Maybe there is a new commons movement just ahead of us?
- elliekelly 6y ago
  There has been a similar movement with billboards, too. I’m reminded of this recent reddit post[1] showing before & after photos of Poland. I think there are a few states in the US that prohibit outdoor advertising, too. I suppose a city’s ambience is a “commons” in a way. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/l0p31m/in_poland_we_are_slowly_getting_rid_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/l0p31m/in_poland_we...
- Gravityloss 6y ago
  Is movement around the world a lot easier nowadays than 25 years ago? Remote work for example is a big thing, many companies are more multinational. So you could just leave places where people are allowed to exploit the commons and move somewhere with a better working system. Some cities would notice that they are not attractive places to live anymore and perhaps might want to do something about it.
- DiggyJohnson 6y ago
  Thank you for framing this topic this way, I think about our shared commons quite a lot - especially the collapse of third places. I think 3rd Places is a good place start down the rabbit hole, for anyone interested. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place#Virtual_third_places https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place#Virtual_third_plac...
voortuckian 6y ago
Freedom from chemical trespass is also a lost common. https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/chemicaltresspass.pdf https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/chem... I think almost all organisms have a little bit of Teflon chemicals now...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tw26007100 6y ago
> [The commons] in a strictly economic sense, was not perceived as scarce. I think this is crucial distinction that is missing from most folks' rhetorical use of "commons". Once the reality of scarcity is perceptible, some form of rationing will always take place, typically expressed as "ownership" (e.g., by the lord via enclosure, or privately via homesteading). As such, there can be no "commons" of a scarce resource. At best, the owner can permit actions which mimic those of a commons. > The issue which I propose for discussion should therefore be clear: how to counter the encroachment of new, electronic devices and systems upon commons that are more subtle and more intimate to our being than either grassland or roads I share the author's concerns, but the "commons" framing misidentifies the problem. Thankfully, a decade later someone did a more thorough job of it: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future#toc17 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-societ...

127 points by cardamomo 6y ago

tomcam 6y ago

So is the night sky.

andai 6y ago
That was my first thought as well. What did we lose when we lost the stars? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25969823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25969823
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ktpsns 6y ago

Interesting article. Here's a point of critique: I think highways and motorways are still commons –– At least in countries where their maintenance is paid by state money, ie. where they are not private roads. This is the classical argument of having the state in charge of providing the infrastructure (such as streets, but also water, electricity or fast internet). Here in Germany, privatisation of infrastructure is a frequent point of discussion and anger. From my point of view, this is the modern equivalent of the "commons become [...]" discussion, where [...] is now more like "bought by private companies" then "productive ressources".

Talanes 6y ago
Which countries do not require licensing to use their roads?
- n4r9 6y ago
  > Before [enclosure], most of the environment had been considered as commons from which most people could draw most of their sustenance without needing to take recourse to the market. I think this is the point. Not that the resource is completely unregulated, but that the common person can benefit from it without constantly having to compete in the market.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    I wouldn't consider simple regulation an enclosing of the commons, but when you add on to the need to invest capital in the form of vehicle registration fees and license fees, it starts to become more enclosed.
- bloak 6y ago
  England? You need a licence to drive certain motor vehicles but even that doesn't, I think, though I may be wrong here, have anything to do with roads, in that you'd need the same licence to drive the same motor vehicle in any public place. Not that there are many non-road public places where you would be allowed to drive a motor vehicle. A few beaches, perhaps?
  - chriswarbo 6y ago
    Nope. All UK road users must follow the Highway Code (although that code is different in Northern Ireland). From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction > This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone. > The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders. > Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. > Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
    - quietbritishjim 6y ago
      You're saying that all road users, even pedestrians and cyclists, have to obey the highway code. But the parent comment never stated otherwise. They said that only certain types of vehicles need to be licenced. They seem to be referring to road tax, rather than MOT which is closer to a licence, but either way they're correct (albeit being a bit pedantic with the GP comment).
C4stor 6y ago
I think you're missing the point (or maybe it's me !). Commons in the article are something that nobody owns, not even the state. It's something that is there, that is used, that is part of the local culture and used in a shared way without any sense of ownership. Saying the state owns the roads is fine, but it still strips from the community the possibility to do whatever with it. I don't think the article talks about privatisation, but rather talks about ownership, and more importantly, about lack of ownership. In a capitalist world, something owned by noone quickly get a flag planted in it saying "this is mine" by some organisation. And that how you transform public space, plant species, spectrum frequencies, ...
sudosysgen 6y ago
The roads are still not commons. Their use is regulated by the State and they are owned by the State. It's certainly much closer to the commons than private property for profit, but it's not quite it.
michael1999 6y ago
Try and hold a birthday party on this so-called "commons".

FriedrichN 6y ago

I fear we're way past any form of commons, from land, sea, air, space, even radio wave frequencies are sliced up, sold, paid for and controlled. Even when stepping in 'nature', it's governed by laws that state what you can and can't do. I can't think of a thing we don't regulate and I don't think that'll ever go away.

mikepurvis 6y ago
These laws and regulations are about protecting the commons. You're prevented from polluting on public land so that it remains usable by others into the future; you can't just set up a high powered transmitter and jam everyone because then all the other radio equipment sharing that space would stop working. If you want to operate a boat on the open water above a certain size, you need the proper lights to ensure that everyone is safe out there. The tragedy of the commons would be if these things weren't enforced so that the various commons descended into anarchy and a dumping ground for externalities.
- FriedrichN 6y ago
  I'm not saying we shouldn't protect the environment, control air space, restrict the use of radio frequencies, etc. I'm merely stating that, for better or worse, true unregulated commons no longer exist. Any hunter gatherers that still exist are merely tolerated.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    But how unregulated were the commons? If you were to somehow destroy the commons that the community relies on, would you get away with it? There was always some breaks on outright maniacs, even if it was just getting lynched.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The commons were regulated communally, yes. They weren't regulated with state power. In a sense, it really was anarchy - but an anarchy that worked.

motohagiography 6y ago

One of Illich's most important ideas was the "Radical Monopoly," using cars in cities as an example, where the car operates as a monopoly technology, dominating what was previously a commons. The only way to rebel against it was to walk and ride bicycles, even though your participation in cities in these modes would be less efficient, higher risk, and generally inferior to that of using a car. And yet, just in the last 25 years people inspired by Illich who were cyclists and pedestrians formed movements (also using the ideas of Jane Jacobs) for walkable cities and neighbourhoods, and bike lanes. I think these movements have had some success re-establishing a new commons carved out of the one dominated by cars. I think the internet, and the internet giants form one of these radical monopolies. The equivalent to being a cyclist 25 years ago but on the internet today would be using things like BSD or linux, Pinephones, Matrix, DDG, and in particular, it would mean largely eschewing the browser as a means for entertainment. Maybe there is a new commons movement just ahead of us?

elliekelly 6y ago
There has been a similar movement with billboards, too. I’m reminded of this recent reddit post[1] showing before & after photos of Poland. I think there are a few states in the US that prohibit outdoor advertising, too. I suppose a city’s ambience is a “commons” in a way. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/l0p31m/in_poland_we_are_slowly_getting_rid_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/l0p31m/in_poland_we...
Gravityloss 6y ago
Is movement around the world a lot easier nowadays than 25 years ago? Remote work for example is a big thing, many companies are more multinational. So you could just leave places where people are allowed to exploit the commons and move somewhere with a better working system. Some cities would notice that they are not attractive places to live anymore and perhaps might want to do something about it.
DiggyJohnson 6y ago
Thank you for framing this topic this way, I think about our shared commons quite a lot - especially the collapse of third places. I think 3rd Places is a good place start down the rabbit hole, for anyone interested. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place#Virtual_third_places https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place#Virtual_third_plac...

voortuckian 6y ago

Freedom from chemical trespass is also a lost common. https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/chemicaltresspass.pdf https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/chem... I think almost all organisms have a little bit of Teflon chemicals now...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tw26007100 6y ago

> [The commons] in a strictly economic sense, was not perceived as scarce. I think this is crucial distinction that is missing from most folks' rhetorical use of "commons". Once the reality of scarcity is perceptible, some form of rationing will always take place, typically expressed as "ownership" (e.g., by the lord via enclosure, or privately via homesteading). As such, there can be no "commons" of a scarce resource. At best, the owner can permit actions which mimic those of a commons. > The issue which I propose for discussion should therefore be clear: how to counter the encroachment of new, electronic devices and systems upon commons that are more subtle and more intimate to our being than either grassland or roads I share the author's concerns, but the "commons" framing misidentifies the problem. Thankfully, a decade later someone did a more thorough job of it: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future#toc17 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-societ...