4 ms·

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 stepp

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.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        It's dismaying that modern state power feels (and is) something entirely distinct from communal. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" was lost long ago.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Indeed. This is, sadly, an unavoidable consequence of a society increasingly based on relations of ownership to maintain social coherence. Communal relationships even under the égide of the state become increasingly difficult and impossible.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Back in Russia, my family knew all our neighbours, now in Uk i have no idea who lives left or right of me. Perhaps thats related to the phenomena that although crime rate has gone down fear of crime and kidnappings has gone up.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        A similar thing is happening in Morocco. So far the best theory I heard of why it happens - which I especially respect because it is so old. The theory is that the increase in reliance on the market to organize one's life leads one to understand the real social relationships in society no longer as relationships between real people, but instead as relationships between material objects, thus alienating people from the societies that are important to them. It stops being because of Walid at the grocery store that you get eggs, but instead because of The Store that you can do so, so why care about Walid anymore? It's not thanks to Pierre down the road that your driveway is clear of snow anymore, it's thanks to The Snow-shoveling Company, defined by the amount of snow left, the average price, and the time at which they come (regulated of course by The Market) that you have a shoveled driveway, so what's the point in caring who Pierre is? As you stop understanding the relationships and the value that allows you to live your life in social terms, there is no longer a reason to care about who your neighbors are unless they actively impede you, and the converse too. I don't know if it's the correct one, but as this sort of phenomenon is so strongly correlates with economic development it rings very true to me.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Use of the commons was still regulated. It just wasn't regulated using relationships of ownership or using the state. If you were dumping externalities people would get angry, get together, and eventually you would be stopped. The purpose of the Enclosure Act wasn't to solve a tragedy of the commons. It was to steal the common from the goose.
ehnto 6y ago
The best I could come up with is music. Now, that's obviously a nuanced discussion. But I think it's the closest we've got. It's only regulated in certain circumstances, it has been commercialized yet anyone can make it or listen to it still, and it is definitely something that people take and meld into their own. It's just about the purest form of expression we commonly exchange between cultures big and small, international and local. Again, definitely worthy of debate, but you're not wrong when you suggest it's slim pickings. That's all I could come up with.

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.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      It's dismaying that modern state power feels (and is) something entirely distinct from communal. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" was lost long ago.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Indeed. This is, sadly, an unavoidable consequence of a society increasingly based on relations of ownership to maintain social coherence. Communal relationships even under the égide of the state become increasingly difficult and impossible.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Back in Russia, my family knew all our neighbours, now in Uk i have no idea who lives left or right of me. Perhaps thats related to the phenomena that although crime rate has gone down fear of crime and kidnappings has gone up.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        A similar thing is happening in Morocco. So far the best theory I heard of why it happens - which I especially respect because it is so old. The theory is that the increase in reliance on the market to organize one's life leads one to understand the real social relationships in society no longer as relationships between real people, but instead as relationships between material objects, thus alienating people from the societies that are important to them. It stops being because of Walid at the grocery store that you get eggs, but instead because of The Store that you can do so, so why care about Walid anymore? It's not thanks to Pierre down the road that your driveway is clear of snow anymore, it's thanks to The Snow-shoveling Company, defined by the amount of snow left, the average price, and the time at which they come (regulated of course by The Market) that you have a shoveled driveway, so what's the point in caring who Pierre is? As you stop understanding the relationships and the value that allows you to live your life in social terms, there is no longer a reason to care about who your neighbors are unless they actively impede you, and the converse too. I don't know if it's the correct one, but as this sort of phenomenon is so strongly correlates with economic development it rings very true to me.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Use of the commons was still regulated. It just wasn't regulated using relationships of ownership or using the state. If you were dumping externalities people would get angry, get together, and eventually you would be stopped. The purpose of the Enclosure Act wasn't to solve a tragedy of the commons. It was to steal the common from the goose.

ehnto 6y ago

The best I could come up with is music. Now, that's obviously a nuanced discussion. But I think it's the closest we've got. It's only regulated in certain circumstances, it has been commercialized yet anyone can make it or listen to it still, and it is definitely something that people take and meld into their own. It's just about the purest form of expression we commonly exchange between cultures big and small, international and local. Again, definitely worthy of debate, but you're not wrong when you suggest it's slim pickings. That's all I could come up with.