4 ms·

I think you might be thinking about Elinor Ostrom and she didn't show that his assumptions and claims were wrong exactly. She expanded on the work to clarify th

by zaphar 2mo ago

I think you might be thinking about Elinor Ostrom and she didn't show that his assumptions and claims were wrong exactly. She expanded on the work to clarify the difference between managed vs unmanaged commons. Showing that successful commons are managed in some way with established rules and limits around the usage. The term still has use especially if it is used to clarify the need for management of common resources to avoid the tragedy.

mjburgess 2mo ago
which is also basically the same point made by Hobbes about the state of nature Hobbes, Rousseau were effectively both trying to solve the "tragedy of the commons" problem with political collaboration. Hobbes is widely misunderstood by (romantic, naive, libertarian) fools to have said that absent a powerful soverign, life is "nasty brutish and short". What he more accurately said is that, "an unmanaged commons is nasty bruitsh and short" -- to use that kind of language Rousseau, to the same romantic strain is widely misunderstood to have said that 'the unmanaged commons' is a delight. Instead, he basically said politically community isnt that required anyway, and if you're in trouble, just run away. In either case, the tragedy of the commons issue is well known in other guises throughout the history of philosophy
- underlipton 2mo ago
  These are both ways of saying that the problem isn't the commons (shared ownership), it's an issue of accountability (where "abandon something broken and find another" is a way of exercising accountability).
- PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago
  > In either case, the tragedy of the commons issue is well known in other guises throughout the history of philosophy It really isn't. There are lots of anecdotes that appear to illustrate the tragedy, throughout history. But what they lack is what Ostrom added: the historical account of how a previously managed commons had its management structures dismantled by greed and power and only then was in a position to become a "tragedy". The result is that a very significant number of people believe that resources held in common always lead to "tragedy", when in fact the lesson is "the structures used to manage resources held in common are critically important, and severe action should and must be taken against those who try to dismantle them". We can hold resources in common, but must be ever vigilant and actionful against the selfish bastards who seek to manipulate them for their own advantage.
  - mjburgess 2mo ago
    Right, and that's pretty much exactly Hobbes analysis of the state of nature which is a hypothetical stripping away of such systems of political management. The application of this principle to physical resources is novel, sure -- but the observation that "enforced coordination solves the rational self-interest problem" isnt novel.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago
      Agreed that it's not novel. But Ostrom's novel observation wasn't that. It was "all those stories of how shared ownership of resources leads to tragedies? they're wrong, and part of a mostly uncoordinated attempt to get you to abandon the idea of shared ownership of resources. It is, as ever, greed and power that lead to those tragedies".
PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago
My understanding of Ostrom's work was to show that basically almost all commons were managed, and that when they were not, that was the result of selfish actors deliberately seeking to dismantle the management structures to further their own individual interests.
- zaphar 2mo ago
  That was not my understanding at all. She seemed to be making a much more nuanced point than the simplistic: "selfish actors deliberately dismantle..". I was more responding to the idea that she refuted hardin though which is very much not the case. She built on and expanded his thesis.

by zaphar 2mo ago

mjburgess 2mo ago

which is also basically the same point made by Hobbes about the state of nature Hobbes, Rousseau were effectively both trying to solve the "tragedy of the commons" problem with political collaboration. Hobbes is widely misunderstood by (romantic, naive, libertarian) fools to have said that absent a powerful soverign, life is "nasty brutish and short". What he more accurately said is that, "an unmanaged commons is nasty bruitsh and short" -- to use that kind of language Rousseau, to the same romantic strain is widely misunderstood to have said that 'the unmanaged commons' is a delight. Instead, he basically said politically community isnt that required anyway, and if you're in trouble, just run away. In either case, the tragedy of the commons issue is well known in other guises throughout the history of philosophy

underlipton 2mo ago
These are both ways of saying that the problem isn't the commons (shared ownership), it's an issue of accountability (where "abandon something broken and find another" is a way of exercising accountability).
PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago
> In either case, the tragedy of the commons issue is well known in other guises throughout the history of philosophy It really isn't. There are lots of anecdotes that appear to illustrate the tragedy, throughout history. But what they lack is what Ostrom added: the historical account of how a previously managed commons had its management structures dismantled by greed and power and only then was in a position to become a "tragedy". The result is that a very significant number of people believe that resources held in common always lead to "tragedy", when in fact the lesson is "the structures used to manage resources held in common are critically important, and severe action should and must be taken against those who try to dismantle them". We can hold resources in common, but must be ever vigilant and actionful against the selfish bastards who seek to manipulate them for their own advantage.
- mjburgess 2mo ago
  Right, and that's pretty much exactly Hobbes analysis of the state of nature which is a hypothetical stripping away of such systems of political management. The application of this principle to physical resources is novel, sure -- but the observation that "enforced coordination solves the rational self-interest problem" isnt novel.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago
    Agreed that it's not novel. But Ostrom's novel observation wasn't that. It was "all those stories of how shared ownership of resources leads to tragedies? they're wrong, and part of a mostly uncoordinated attempt to get you to abandon the idea of shared ownership of resources. It is, as ever, greed and power that lead to those tragedies".

PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago

My understanding of Ostrom's work was to show that basically almost all commons were managed, and that when they were not, that was the result of selfish actors deliberately seeking to dismantle the management structures to further their own individual interests.

zaphar 2mo ago
That was not my understanding at all. She seemed to be making a much more nuanced point than the simplistic: "selfish actors deliberately dismantle..". I was more responding to the idea that she refuted hardin though which is very much not the case. She built on and expanded his thesis.