4 ms·
> It works... pretty badly, but so does every other system you can imagine. That's not true. There's been some great work in the area of 'the tragedy of the c
by mandmandam 2y ago
> It works... pretty badly, but so does every other system you can imagine.
That's not true.
There's been some great work in the area of 'the tragedy of the commons' by Elinor Ostrom, and others, which shows that not only is it possible to protect the commons without top-down regulation, but it's also quite feasible.
- tptacek 2y agoOk, but this doesn't matter to my argument, does it?
- mandmandam 2y agoIf it doesn't matter to your argument, why did you bring it up in the first place? Why would you claim there was no functional alternative, then say it doesn't matter when shown one? The idea that principles for wisely and sustainably managing a commons would have no connection to regulating against water pollution is bizarre to me. I wouldn't know where to start if you don't see how those overlap. > What could that even mean? Read some Ostrom and find out, maybe?
- tptacek 2y agoI did not claim there was no functional alternative.
- mandmandam 2y agoYou claimed that 'every other system you can imagine works pretty badly'. As in, they don't function well. This level of pedantry might serve you well in some areas of life; but here, now, what are you accomplishing? Why not focus on the joyous fact that there not only is there huge room for improvement in this area, but people have in fact already done a huge amount of the groundwork?
- tptacek 2y agoI'm really not interested in deep-sea drilling to find things to argue about, sorry.