The Tragedy of the Commons.
I must confess that in the past I have thought of the libertarian as a peculiar species. And truth be told, I am fascinated by them still as I strive to find out what makes them tick. You see, I have noticed that they are a logical lot and shy away from emotional outbursts, relying instead on their libertarian philosophy and leaving it at that.
But where I can't seem to agree with this enlightened group is on the matter of the environment. I have shied away from talking about capitalism and the environment on Daily Paul in the past. Sure I would write about the "evil they call Monsanto" and bring up my poisoned water, but I was always concerned about writing anything that could hurt Ron Paul. I wouldn't even keep my Ron Paul sign on my car if my car needed washing.
But yesterday, while web surfing on the subject of libertarians and the logical thought factor, I came across this article. This excerpt about the tragedy of the commons caught my attention:
"Capitalism and the Tragedy of the Commons
Capitalism's most dangerous flaw is that it has no inherent method for dealing with the tragedy of the commons.
The tragedy of the commons is the doctrine which insists that we will always add one too many sheep to the village commons, destroying it. In other words, we will always opt for an immediate benefit at the expense of less tangible values such as the availability of a resource to future generations. When you look around you, it is immediately obvious, if your eyes are open, that the tragedy of the commons is an accurate description of human nature; such disaparate human creations and institutions as Times Square, Usenet and Love Canal all represent tragedies of the commons.
Most of capitalism's cheerleaders simply never mention the tragedy of the commons, or deny that such a thing exists. The all wise invisible hand of the marketplace, some claim, is as competent to keep us out of future trouble as it is to grant us future benefit.
But you must truly have blinders on to believe this, as the visible effects of human behavior prove it is not so. To pick an example particularly important to me: I have been diving the coral reefs of Pennekamp State Park in Key Largo, Florida for almost twenty years. In that period of time, the glorious coral heads have given way to spottier, smaller stretches of discolored coral, and fish that were common (such as grouper) are now never seen at all. The degradation of the reefs is painfully visible in two decades of my lifetime and the cause is patently obvious. Each fisherman takes more fish than he should, each dive boat takes too many divers on too many trips, and the shipping companies run too many large ships, including oil tankers, over and eventually into the reefs.
Its all capitalism: the dive operators, the shipping companies, the commercial fishermen. Free market capitalism dictates that they will ultimately destroy the Pennekamp reefs. In an even more stunning example of the same phenomenon, the citizens of the Philippines dynamite their coral reefs so that you can buy brightly colored coral fragments in souvenir shops.
It would be easy and convenient to say that the tragedy of the commons is a modern phenomenon, that humans were not capable of doing too much damage until their population exceeded certain numbers or their technological tools became powerful beyond a certain point. However, this threshold was crossed in human prehistory when it is likely that certain other species, such as the wooly mammoth, were hunted to extinction.
Free market capitalism teaches us how to better our lives, and those of other people, by reaching out and taking, and by doing so more efficiently and productively. Capitalism is very bad at teaching us when to refrain from taking. That part of ourselves which steps forward to suggest that "thou shalt not"--named the "superego" by Freud--simply does not form part of the free market system. Just as the ego and the id in the Freudian paradigm must refer to something outside themselves for the restraint that so often means survival, humans must look outside the capitalist system for the self-restraint that will avoid the destruction of every commons used by us. Our history also illustrates that the destruction of the commons will not be stopped by shame, moral admonitions, or cultural mores anywhere near so effectively as it will be by the will of the people expressed as a protective mandate; in other words, by government.
Hayek, the philosopher of free markets, admits this when he says, in discussing the importance of government to a free market system:
To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition.
In fact, Hayek is dealing directly with the tragedy of the commons when he says a page later that free market pricing fails when "the damage caused to others by certain uses of property cannot be effectively charged to the owner of that property." He continues:
Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the danger for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism.
Hayek was not a libertarian; he believed in striking the right balance between government and markets. Capitalism may contribute a large part of human welfare and progress, but it cannot do so without some external constraints." http://www.spectacle.org/...
I am hoping there might be some libertarians here who would want to discuss this article. Here is more food for thought.
The Trees- Rush
"There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.
The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.
There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
An interesting development related to the Tragedy of the Commons
was this Classic, Classic article by Wolf de Voon. I dont agree with him 100%, but then, there is hardly anyone I can agree with 100%:
...so, without further ado ---
Al Gore Declares World Soap Day
by Wolf de Voon
http://www.geocities.com/...
Real Deal, did you write that Spectacle.org article?
Please let me know if these arguements are from just you or you and another author. You might wish to contact me, a lifelong libertarian. So Contact me.
First i am delighted anyone tries to make a good criticism of libertarianism. Further I am happy to read that several concepts where understood and several authors mentioned. Quick summary of the Spectale article; The author critiques libertarianism ...
A) As a philosophy that does not understand Human Nature
B) Has no answer to The Problem of the Commons
C) is not Fuzzy Enough, too black n white.
D) goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
E) Assumes individuals with profit motives do good things and individuals with political motives do bad things
F) Assumes collectives are bad and private collectives are good.
G) Goes against the Is Ought Problem
Does that about sum it up? I would say the author has it all backwards ...starting with what libertarianism is based upon and what it is not based upon. Further, the author's understanding of Property Rights itself is flawed. The Spectale article is mistaken from A thru G and I would love to discuss this with you & the author at anytime, so contact me, but this is not the place.
Meanwhile you may be interested to learn about Free Market Environmentalism. Some libertarian based environment principles have been put into action with amazing results; more Alligators, more Rhinos, more Elephants, etc. As is often the case, how we decide to bundle property rights, is the magic in the civilizing potion.
In Peace & Liberty,
Treg
Last spring my brother
Last spring my brother called and told me to google myself. I couldn't believe what I saw. I was almost the entire first page. It listed all my information from Digg. I was a member of 4 Ron Paul meetups and it listed those. Every comment I had ever written about Ron Paul on the Huffington Post was available to be read. Letters to the Editor I had written about Ron Paul to area newspapers were there. An on it went. I was no longer anonymous.
I have since corrected most of this. I learned to always sign up using initials or another name. I had to close accounts and resign up. It was a wake up call. My dailypaul email address has my name on it and I haven't taken the time to change my account here. I need to get that changed. That's the only reason I haven't emailed you, Treg. Thank you for your fine reply.
The Pursuit of Libertarianism
Treg, I did not write the Spectical article and am proud to say that I did not agree with most of it. But since I am concerned about the environment, the author's thoughts on libertarianism and the Tragedy of the Commons caught my attention and I printed it out in order to read it a couple of times. Like the author, I questioned the libertarian theory that the commons should be eliminated and should be owned by one individual as it would therefore be taken care of. I questioned what exactly did the commons include. Is the air we breathe, the ground water we drink included in the commons? How can one individual own the air? That is the only reason I linked the article.
Until discovering Ron Paul I am sorry to say that I was a sheeple. But that has all changed because of Ron Paul. I have spent many hours reading articles from the Ron Paul Library. I devoured "The Revolution," and have spent days on end reading and learning from the Daily Paul libertarians. Below, ronpaulistheanswer questions why I refer to us as "they" instead of "we." I have thought about that question and the answer is that I can not yet consider myself a libertarian. I have not yet read anything by Harry Browne or Murray Rothbard. I have not even read "Atlas Shrugged" yet.
I wonder if some of the things I believe in will fit in with libertarianism. I am strongly pro life. This link seems to prove it can be harmonious. http://www.ronpaullibrary...
But it is my thoughts on environmental issues and if they are compatible with the libertarian philosophy that I am working through right now. Thanks to everyone for your comments. I have again learned much from Daily Paul.
So you can see Treg, I have much reading still to do.
Maybe I should take a break from DP and get started on some Ayn Rand.
Convert the commons to private property,
where possible. That's the solution to tragedy of the commons.
Your post is bizarre. I've never seen tragedy of the commons used AGAINST capitalism. I've always seen it used in SUPPORT OF capitalism. The commons are SOCIALIZED property. Tragedy of the commons is a criticism of socialism, not capitalism.
The point is people take care of private property better than they do the commons, therefore private property rights should be allowed in water, air, and land. THAT'S the libertarian position. That's what Dr. Paul means when he says private property rights is the solution to minimizing pollution.
The Environment.............
A great deal of environmentalism is being used as a tool to further the NWO.
-IMPORTANT- Please see:
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Legalize MILK! Save the environment; recruit liberals to CFL
Please check out realmilk.com.
As a small struggling grass based, raw milk organic dairy farmer, I need your help. Government regs force me to sell my milk to large industrial dairy processors. I would rather sell you the very same milk I drink. This would amost double my income by cutting out the middlemen. I would be able to pay higher wages, do even more than I already am to reduce global warminmg and other environmental damage, take even more humane care of my cows and more. My farm is an excellent way of talking to liberals on how to use liberty to advance their goals through voluntary socialism.
Charles N. Rutledge
Ron Paul Supporter since 1988
Organic Dairy Farmer
By now, the cow police have tracked Mr. Rutledge's IP...
A tactical team from the Bovine Oppression Security Service Environmentalists (B.O.S.S.E.) has surrounded his house and are in position. In a few minutes, Mr. Rutledge will be tasered and strapped to a chair while the milking device is placed on his genitalia. These government 'milkings' as they are called are meant to break the backs of the resistant few 'organic' farmers who won't lick the boots of Dow or Monsanto by injecting their cows with Bovine Growth Hormone. His family will be forced to watch.
Yes, a bit tongue-in-cheek but my message should be as clear as Mr. Rutledge's. it doesn't take much to wind up in the crosshairs of big gov't. As more and more normal behavior becomes 'illegal', something you may be doing for a living, or recreation, or hobby will MAKE you a criminal.
If you don't turn your firearms in; criminal.
If your neighbor gets 'investigated' for domestic terrorism, and you didn't report him; criminal.
If your children tell their teachers that you don't unplug your cell phone chargers when not in use; criminal.
If you have a milk crate in your garage; criminal.
If you have anything that could conceivably be used as a weapon in your car; criminal.
It's time to stop thinking that it can't happen here because it's happening here. Politicians are criminalizing behavior all the time. You may have been criminalized already and not know it.
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
Because of informed consumers refusing the BGH milk,
Monsanto is selling it's patent to BGH. From the Article:
"The market has forced Monsanto to abandon Prosilac, a bovine growth hormone used to artificially boost milk production in cows. First, Monsanto could not convince enough consumers that milk from treated cows was as good as milk from untreated cows. Then, Monsanto could not convince enough governments to outlaw labels that revealed if the milk was from untreated cows. Now, Monsanto has decided sell its division that produces Prosilac. This would have happened long ago, but Monsanto persistently manipulated the market and suppressed information. "
Link: http://organiclawyers.com...
They literally couldn't force it down our throats, (the milk) and so it is not a "cash cow" for them!
BTW, I appreciate your humor! B.O.S.S.E Indeed!!
More on cows and Monsanto
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Sorry, double tap.
.
And further more:
With government legislation on the “Tragedy of the Commons” only makes the problem worse in most cases! If ABC Paints is dumping 20 gallons of waste into the river each day and people are getting upset down stream what happens in my estimation is ABC Paints lobbies congress to pass legislation where paint companies can only dump 60 gallons of waste into the river each day. Then when the people down stream complain about ABC Paints dumping they can show how they are well UNDER federal standards and what is the problem? Still just my opinion.
As I see it:
The "Tragedy of the Commons" is a problem with human nature. It will always exist to some degree. Legislation will not ever fix the problem. People will go around the fix no matter what rules govern the problem. Legislation does not teach people to be responsible. Legislation uses FEAR to enforce rules. When there is no FEAR there are no rules!
Our founders told us our form of government would only work if the people had good moral principals. They told us we must be responsible for ourselves!
I personally believe all people are born with good moral principals and also feel a natural guilt when they do wrong. As humans I believe we know when we hurt the environment through this natural built in guilt we feel. As we grow up we CHOOSE not to listen to that natural guilt. We get greedy or selfish and we don’t listen to those feelings that tell us we are doing wrong. You can not teach someone to be responsible. The only way you can learn to be responsible is if you yourself decide for yourself to be responsible.
The result of not being responsible and not listening to that natural god given guilt is you hurt yourself and/or everyone else. Sometimes it feels like you got away with it but eventually that hurt will come back and get you. When you pollute the air you hurt yourself and everyone else. Maybe not today but eventually it all adds up and you have dirty air.
So maybe Capitalism has no method for dealing with the tragedy of the commons. But I do not believe government legislation has ever or will ever fix the problem either. Personal responsibility is a problem we humans will teach ourselves individually or we will kill ourselves off!
That is my opinion.
Interesting Read.
I don't think you will find many people that disagree with you on most of those points. For instance I do not think we should loot and plunder nature but I also don't think that it is the role of the federal government to police it.
I would gamble that most people would find it reasonable if we left it to the states to police that kind of activity, as I believe the founders intended.
re: the tragedy of the commons
a nursery rhyme from 1764...
Hang the Man and flog the Woman
that steal the geese from off the common,
but let the greater villain loose
that steals the common from the goose.
The Law demands that we atone
when we take things we do not own,
but leaves the Lords and Ladies fine
that take things that are yours and mine.
kind of sez it all.... sstorch
Nice poem
I too have a fondness toward nature and am very concerned about climate change as it follows CO2 level. I notice there are some here who think humans have not contributed to it. I would like to here their arguement.
The reason I am certain it is from burning fossil fuels is because of the content of CO2 bubbles in the artic ice cores. There evidence dates back to 650 - 1000 million years.
Temperatue and CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow each other nearly perfectly with temp lagging a bit. Right now we have the highest recorded CO2 level in 650-1000 million years. And the highest temp. levels shortly behind. In 1850 the average ppm in the atmosphere was 280. It is now 380ppm. But the alarming part is that the rate of exceleration of CO2 into the air is +-20 times faster than ever before for 1000 millioin years.
Vikings Farmed Greenland
I notice there are some here who think humans have not contributed to it. I would like to here their arguement.
Humans may or may not contribute to climate change. Maybe cow farts are a stronger factor than CO2? Maybe these are natural cycles.
For example, Vikings easily lived and farmed on Greenland until it got COLD.
http://www.archaeology.or...
An ice core drilled from the island's massive icecap between 1992 and 1993 shows a decided cooling off in the Western Settlement during the mid-fourteenth century.
I suspect that "climate change happens".
If you want to look at the other side
I'd say take a look at The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Link
Nature conservancy
The nature conservancy isn't perfect; it does its share of big-government lobbying. It also has committed grievous environmental sins, like this one instance where they licenced out this land to an oil developer, didn't keep tabs on it, and it wound up as an oil spill.
However, it is very very close to ideal, and they have largely been upfront and honest about some of the mistakes they made; and readily acknowledge that they are still learning.
Environmentalism is best handled as a personal, moral commitment. NGOs like the Nature Conservancy should exist for individuals both rich and poor to pool their money and contribute to the preservation of our world, within the context of property rights and capitalism. Capitalism makes no statement about how you ought use you money -- just how prices are set; and you'd be surprised; if the crutch of the government did not exist, many people would be very willing to give their own money to further environmental causes.
The Pollution Solution
A short essay by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart:
http://www.ruwart.com/env...
Also, look into the Nature Conservancy. They do good work, the legitimate way.
And for a more in-depth take on libertarian philosophy dealing with property rights, you might want to read some of Murray Rothbard's books. Most of them can be read online at the mises institute. Some of them are even on youtube in audiobook versions.
Man, I love those articles.
Man, I love those articles. Even as a staunch advocate of voting for Barr unless Paul is on the ballot, I can’t help but wish the LP were running Ms. Ruwart instead.
You've been on Daily Paul
for 49 weeks but you still refer to us as "they" instead of "we!" What is your agenda?
I thought we were discussing
I thought we were discussing the Tragedy of the Commons.
"Them" as in libertarians. Me as in a former registered independent, now a registered republican, trying my best to keep up with the lifelong libertarians on dailypaul. That's all.
I reject the premise
that the earth is owned in common by people in the future who haven't been born yet. The Earth is ours to exploit if we need to.
"The Earth is
That's a bold statement. Who gave it to us? If you say "God," you've still got all your work ahead of you.
Property is something you create or, in the case of land, make useful. Did we participate in the creation of this planet? Are we putting it to good use?
This planet belongs no more to us than to chimpanzees or ants.
I should also note that libertarian philosophy recognizes that the concept of ownership can be taken too far. If a big cattle baron buys up all the land surrounding the local water supply and fences it off, he's violated the rights of the small ranchers. On the other hand, if a conservationist buys up a million acres and does nothing useful with it, he's violated the rights of the community to make use of that land and exploit its resources.
I'm sure somebody will come along now and call me a communist for recognizing that communal rights can in fact supersede individual rights under libertarian philosophy, even though Ron Paul agrees with me.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
How are those two situations a violation of rights?
Can you lay-out your reasoning chain?
How are they
How are they not?
----------
Liberty for Dummies
A person has a right to use their own property
as long as they don't violate the rights of someone else.
In both examples you mention, individuals are using their property without violating anyone else's rights.
That's why I posed the above question.
We disagree on what
We disagree on what constitutes a violation of rights.
Allow me to employ reductio ad absurdum to illustrate my point: if I were able to buy every square inch of land on this planet, and I evicted every last person from the land, forcing them to board rafts floating on the sea, would I be within my rights?
There are times when communal rights do in fact trump individual rights. This does not violate libertarian philosophy; in fact it is part of that philosophy.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
OK
What constitutes a violation of rights?
Why don't you address the
Why don't you address the three examples I've already given, before asking for further elaboration?
Actually, skip the first two, I like the last one best (I'm a sucker for reductio). Tell me if my hypothetical "global landlord" violated anyone's rights.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
I do not see how
the last example is a violation of rights.
You are making a positive claim. Thus I ask you to prove it: what philosophical principle are you employing to determine if something is a rights violation?
If you don't see that as a
If you don't see that as a violation of rights, then there is nothing I could say to you that would convince you of the existence of innate rights.
This is why I was evasive and pushed the issue; your answer would determine how fruitful a deeper discussion of rights could be.
Please read Locke.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
If you can tell me the philosphical principle
you are using to determine what is a rights violation, I will examine it. I will not just reject it carte blanche...
The concept of rights cannot
The concept of rights cannot be boiled down to a sentence or two. Lock is a good place to start building a foundational understanding: http://www.gutenberg.org/...
----------
Liberty for Dummies
I didn't ask for the whole concept!
I am solely interest to hear the specific principle that you use to determine what constitutes a rights violation.
Your question makes no
Your question makes no sense! A violation of rights is a violation of rights!
This forum needs a "banging head" icon.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
If you were to give that answer
to someone learning about rights, I don't think they would be impressed...
Student what constitutes a violation of rights?
Teacher: a violation of rights for pete's sake!
The question is
The question is circular.
Tell me, hypothetically, how you would answer this:
Q. What is a violation of rights?
A. It's when someone...?
You see, "a violation of rights" is not the question, it is the answer. For example:
Q. What was the New Orleans firearm seizure?
A. A violation of rights.
Framing it as you did (what constitutes...) doesn't help, it only illustrates the circularity by taking "X constitutes a violation of rights" and demanding that X be filled in. Presented that way, the answers are endless; I'd have to list every possible violation of rights -- so I answered that a violation of rights is... a violation of rights! As in, any violation of rights constitutes a violation of rights.
Sorry for the convolution, but I'm afraid you've left me no choice by your circular question.
BTW, have you read Locke's treatise yet? It isn't the best text (too religious for my taste), but does address natural rights, even though that's not the primary subject. I think once you get a grasp on the basic premise, you'll understand how a violation of the individual rights remains just that, no matter how many individuals there are (that is, a collective is composed of individuals, so just the mere formation of a collective does not erase those inherent individual rights).
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Yes, I always want to
hear Phoobar's answer.
Bump.
If you were somehow able
to buy every square inch of the earth, you would be within your rights to evict everyone from the Earth. No problem.
Is it a remote possibility that you could ever buy that much of the Earth? No. So it's not something to be concerned about anyway.
Whether it is likely is
Whether it is likely is irrelevant. The purpose of reductio ad absurdum is to determine if your foundation is sound. If a concept can't pass that test, it is unsound. It would be foolish to build a complex ideology on an unsound foundation.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
For what reasons do you believe it fails the test?
Show why it is absurd. So far, you have just stated the conclusion that it is--you have not shown the premises that you used to arrive at that conclusion.
I have, but you've rejected
I have, but you've rejected them. There's nothing left to argue, but you seem keen on doing it anyway.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
You only gave your conclusion that it was
absurd. You have not yet revealed your premises that led you to that conclusion.
The absurdity is the
The absurdity is the process.
Honestly, are you daft?
----------
Liberty for Dummies
I'm looking over Phoobaar's whole
argument. He/she has argued very emotionally. He/she has still not proven the claim that those examples are violations of rights.
Don't bother Atrickpay. Some are not cut out for reason and logic.
As far as I can tell, I've
As far as I can tell, I've employed no emotion, but only pure reason and logic. It is Patrick who refuses to engage in anything even remotely resembling a debate.
But thanks for poking your nose in to insult me. :-)
----------
Liberty for Dummies
It's just poetic license.
By "our" I just mean the living generation, and I don't mean common ownership.
I'm saying I, you, or no other living person, ows a thing to future generations. Leave it in shambles, if you will. I don't believe in the doctrine of Altruism, especially when it's for people that haven't even been born.
Fair enough, you're entitled
Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I'd just like to point out that if we applied your philosophy to the present, it would violate libertarian principles.
Imagine if a factory took that approach and poured its waste into a nearby river. "Leave it in shambles," they said, "we owe nothing to anyone."
Libertarianism (and Ron Paul) says that they can and should be held accountable for basically assaulting everyone else by threatening their health.
But you're saying that since the people being harmed are unborn and cannot demand justice from us when we're dead, that it's OK to toss libertarian principles out the window. I disagree; I think we do owe it to future generations to not assault them. I would expect most people to agree. Would you want to be the cause of your grandchild's cancer, for example?
----------
Liberty for Dummies