"The metaphor illustrates how free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately structurally dooms the resource through over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are distributed among all those to whom the resource is available…This, in turn, causes demand for the resource to increase, which causes the problem to snowball to the point in which the resource is exhausted."
---Wikipedia
Here is the classical example that is often used to illustrate the TOC:1
"Picture a pasture, open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
"As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.
"1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.
"2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.
"Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd…and then another…and another. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."
This contradicts Adam Smith's theory that an individual who, even though he seeks only personal gain, is led by an "invisible hand" to take actions that promote the public interest. Smith wrote this in his book, "The Wealth of Nations" published in 1776, but the idea is still in vogue today, particularly among advocates of free markets and deregulation.2
Modern examples of the Tragedy of the Commons include the international fisheries, and, in earlier times, the whaling industry. The Grand Banks fishery, one of the richest fisheries in the world, went into steep decline starting in about 1990. This was the result of the development of large "factory" ships and improved detection systems using sonar, resulting in greatly increased catches. The economies of Newfoundland and Labrador were dependent on fishing, and have suffered greatly from the decline. The fishermen knew what was happening, but were absolutely powerless to stop it.
In the 19th century, whaling drove many whale species to near-extinction. Only the eventual scarcity of the animals prevented total extermination, when the cost of hunting them exceeded their commercial value. Since then, some whale populations have partially recovered, but efforts to limit whaling have met stubborn opposition. Nations like Japan continue to take whales for "research" purposes…a thinly disguised excuse for continued harvesting of endangered species. Most nations have stopped whaling operations, but as long as some continue, whale populations are threatened…and the TOC still applies its deadly logic.
Drawdown of the Ogallalla Aquifer, the huge freshwater reservoir underlying the Great Plains is another example. Farmers started large-scale irrigation in the 1950's, sinking wells into the aquifer to obtain water to irrigate their crops. The Ogallala Aquifer is currently being depleted at a rate of 12 billion cubic meters per year. From 1980 to 1995 the water level dropped by as much as 40 feet in some areas. Some estimates predict it will dry up in as little as 25 years.3 If that happens, our nation will lose one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world.
Consider the atmosphere. Instead of depletion of a resource, in this case it is degradation. We all must breathe the air that envelops our planet in a thin layer, only about 100 miles thick. But every nation dumps millions of tons of pollutants, mostly products of combustion, into it. Our nation, representing 5% of the world population, emits a quarter of the total carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, and substantial quantities of many other toxic gases: particularly oxides of sulfur and nitrogen.
How much damage are these emissions doing to the "habitability health" of our planet? Nobody knows the quantitative answer, but scientists know that, in addition to global warming, these emissions cause acid rain that is killing boreal forests, and is responsible for increases in many human diseases.
Other nations are contributing their share to the toxic cocktail. Only recently, have international efforts been initiated to limit global emissions, and, predictably, the efforts have been largely ineffective. The TOC is at work! Limiting harmful emissions is costly, so national economies are affected. No nation wants to be the first or make a larger sacrifice than the others…so no meaningful action is taken.
In the case of world fisheries, when the stock of a given species (e.g., cod) was depleted, the fishermen moved on, in typical cowboy fashion, to the next pasture (species). The process continues to this day. Eventually, all harvestable species will be driven to extinction, and we will lose an important food source forever.
In the case of the atmosphere, though, there is no "next pasture." When we destroy this one…the only one…we will perish. This common atmosphere is one huge "commons" that we and all other living things share. Its ability to absorb the effluents of an exploding human population is limited, and all indications are that we are approaching that limit, if we have not already exceeded it.
It is time to start thinking of the entire earth as a "commons." As John Muir said, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." We are all connected to each other, and to every other living thing on the earth. Every action that we take affects everyone and everything else. Will we recognize this in time to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons from becoming the cause of our own extinction?
------------------------- NOTES ----------------------
1. "Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin, pp 1243-1248
2. If you would like more information on Adam Smith and his theories, I wrote an article in December of 2005 about the "invisible hand." Here is the link.
3. Wikipedia - Ogallala Aquifer
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 68
A fine discourse in the tradition of Enlightenment (Western) thought.
It exemplifies the split between mind and body, Man and Nature that
led to the formation of Western contemporary secular societies and forms of government as well as modern reductionist science and sociology
The holistic understanding of civilization by former thinkers as we find
in Ibn Khaldun for example has been lost. The consequences we have to deal
with today as the West has devolved toward barbarism and violence.
Worse yet, the rest of the world is striving to emulate us, Clarke. They all want "the good life" that we have enjoyed for the past hundred years or more. The plain fact is...they can't have it...not the grossly wasteful consumerism that we have. The "commons" of the earth simply cannot sustain that, even for the few of us who enjoy it today.
"Worse yet, the rest of the world is striving to emulate us, Clarke. They all want "the good life" that we have enjoyed for the past hundred years or more." I started an article I'm titling "What do we say?" regarding this issue, but doing all this stuff related to selling my condo and moving has side-tracked me, and so I don't know when/if I'll get it done.
"But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons." Yes. That's why we have to go further than reason and develop and incorporate other skills, such as ethics, into our thinking and policy. Reason only takes us so far.
Excellent and timely article.
To Verie and Stephanie...you are right that we need to change our way of thinking about procreation, and also about accumulation of wealth. That's a huge turnabout for the human species. Can we do it?
I agree with you that sexuality is not the problem, and certainly the movies and the porn industry can't be blamed for overpopulation. Our sex drive evolved over millennia when most children didn't live to adulthood and having lots of children was the only way not to go extinct. There were no movies around.... We need to simply understand that there's a mismatch between our sex drive and the number of children we need to have now, and draw the necessary conclusions regarding contraception.
That's why we have to go further than reason and develop and incorporate other skills, such as ethics, into our thinking and policy. Reason only takes us so far.
But reason is the only way we can approach ethics. (Well, not true--we can approach it instinctively as well, but we're likely to end up with usual self-centered rationalizations of why we deserve more than others and why we're right and they are wrong--all hard-wired knee-jerk responses that are the source of conventional we=good them=bad "moralities".) Yes, we need to talk about all these things, but we also need regulation. Preaching against basic instincts is not very effective, as abstinence-only sex education shows. We need [gasp!] government involvement.
Clarke, I would love to hear how the holistic thinkers would solve this, or even how they would state the problem differently from Bert. Or, if their wisdom is irreparably lost, how we know that they did have such amazing insights.
I think our instincts are the problem we need to overcome. Our competitive nature is what helped us succeed on our evolutionary path. We were...and still are...the fittest.
The problem is, that competitive, warlike, argumentative nature is now threatening to undo us! Now we need to learn to get along, to share, and to be concerned about other living things. Because in the end, that is the only thing that will save us.
You should have called this something else to attract more readers--something like "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AND IT'S ALL OUR FAULT!!!" might have done the trick. :-)
A wonderful article and greater comments. I myself go for the "invisible hand" that was discounted in the article. That invisible hand is our own spiritual intuition that connects us in common with the mass mind, especially that of God.
In actually knowing of this, one can be a believer and transcend the ego self, which is the fear based competitive self, that becomes both selfish as well as greedy as a seemingly desirable trait in a dog eat dog society of winner/loser (+/-) competition.
I will leave it at that, other than to say that our cooperation towards the greater good of the whole, would improve overall even the condition of the most successful "dog" in the long term, and none other would have to go without.
IMnsHO.
The saddest loss around here was the St. John River salmon that disappeared after they built the hydrodams. Despite the lifts, the Salmon couldn't get to the spawning grounds.
Wilhelmine...the regenerative powers of the earth are indeed amazing. Nature is pretty robust. But there ARE limits, and we have proven that we can take actions to remediate when we do things that nature can't recover from easily. The Ozone hole in the Antarctic comes to mind. It's still there, but slowly shrinking due to the international efforts to limit chloroflurocarbons.
Jerry...it may well be that the solution to our aggressive, competitive, selfish nature will be the emergence of some kind of spirituality. But I must add that the organized religions of the world have done nothing to further this so far. If anything, they have contributed to the problem.
Sorry I'm so late, Bert. I read this last night when I was already involved in another discussion and too tired to split my brain and do this one justice.
My simple contribution to this discussion is that I believe greed is really about wanting recognition. When we stop recognizing people for having stuff, and recognize them for giving, things might change.
---------------------
Originally, I stopped here. And then I remember a discussion I had with a friend a few night ago. By recognition, I do NOT mean that big givers should have their name in lights or receive tax breaks.
I agree, libramoon. If we can get our ego out of the way...
I agree with Stephanie's comment that we all have to start with ourselves.
I also think it's important to emphasize that ending our long-running war against the Earth doesn't have to mean we live miserably. It just means we'll live differently.
If you haven't seen my two pieces on Capitalism, I encourage you to read them and please comment.
Here is a link.
So true, Bert. I enjoy asking people to define success. When pinned down, not many want to admit that they consider income or things, but that's how most people judge it. It's sad to me how often people look for the indicators on introduction so they'll know how much respect a person deserves - usually with, "What do you do?" It probably won't surprise you to hear that I usually say something like, "eat, sleep, and breathe and it's working so far."
I'll go a step father even on the altruistic theme and suggest we honor people who live simple, honest lives. One of my dearest friends has downsized his life significantly over the last few years. He gave up the big job and is doing something that he loves. He keeps telling me, "The less I have the more I am." That's how I was raised and how I have lived, and I believe what he says is true. The less I use, the more I can give. If we were to do this as a nation, we might not be in debt.
I am not a Christian, but I think that's pretty much what Jesus said. Too bad more Christians don't follow his teachings.
The challenge for humanity is to find the correct balance. Western thought has not embraced this concept, and we continue to be told that if some is good, more must be better. A survey was done to plot the cost of happiness, the curve rose to an income of about $70k in the US, and then further increases in income had very little impact on happiness. And yet people are still driven to aquire more.
There is a dichotomy of humanity, the yin-yang struggle that is found in great writing but not in common discourse. The ego, the drive to succeed, is necessary to survival. It is an important component of our success as a species. But without a caring, compassionate community, we could not have survived either.
"We need to stop bickering over labels like capitalism/socialism/communism "- That's true, Libramoon, all of these systems are flawed. Each has a piece of the puzzle. The US experiment should not be seen as static, but as a work in progress. The founding fathers could not have imagined the dangers of the military-industrial complex or the impersonal greed of corporations run amok. They created a living document to give us a fighting chance to work it out, balancing the powers they could see at the time. If we are unable to counter the self-serving lack of conscience that drives our free-market system, then the commons will be depleted forever.
Nature does not repair, it adapts. If we screw this up, nature can get along without us. We are a blip on the radar screen, a wild ride of exponential invention over a few thousand years. We sit on the verge of extinction, where the dinosaurs lasted for millions. Who is the success story?
Baffling, isn't it?
So true, Bert. Great article. I would add that when we drive one species to extinction, we not only affect that species, but the entire web of life. As sharks are being depleted, whether through conscious slaughter or as a result of net fishing, other populations are affected. We now have a huge upsurge in the ray population off the Eastern coasts. Animals that rays feed upon are being depleted at an alarming rate. And so on and so on.
People tend to focus in on singular extinctions, not looking at the greater effects and imbalances they impose. I heard a gentleman speak the other day on the reduction in large cats, especially tigers, in Southern Asia. He brought up the disease factor in relation to this issue also.
There have been many groups of humans who have recognized that inter-dependency, such as Native Americans. We need to all get back to the attitude that we take only what we absolutely need, on top of limiting population growth.
Sheryl...The mass extinctions of plant and animal life caused by human activities are accelerating, especially with the effects of global warming. There is much we could learn from Native Americans.
To see how a set of really free markets could be used to end such abuses please read Invisible Hand. This novel shows in detail what we could be doing today to end such abuses.
Are you saying that if corporations and individuals owned the national parks and the continental shelves, they would preserve and not exploit and trash them? Why do you think that is true? I don't see how you could apply the idea of private ownership logically to international waters in the oceans or to the atmosphere.
I notice that you do use the word "should" though. Shoulda, coulda...human nature, as I said in my piece about Adam Smith and his Invisible Hand (linked above), does not always do what it "should."
first of all, let me say this: i'm pretty sure the majority of the people on the planet Know Something's Awry.
further: they even Know It's The Fault Of The Rich, and the way they've bent Human Society to their will.
i guess the operative question isn't one of acknowledgment or time--it's more about an iron fist that doesn't know it exists; it's about the Little People (and no: i DON'T mean faeries!) who haven't "risen up" in so very long... they may've forgotten the trick.
we're so bloody SEDATE, y'know? -there's all this fear, and no political firebrands of any real note. no Minutemen--we have, instead, a bunch of Hourgals.
no offense, ladies.
they know, man.
they just...don't wanna DO anything about it. Going Green is the coolest concept since The Rudimentary Spear! why aren't we all emeraldine?
why?
why, indeed. -once Big Brother opens that can of ButtCuttery (its contents: universally adaptable), chaos will probably ensue.
for all the wrong reasons.
in the meantime, guys like me wait for the Rage virus (see "28 Days/Weeks Later"), or SARS-to-the-umpteenth-power...and a world not dissimilar to Stephen King's "The Stand".
a world of terrible and desolate majesty.
a world without the latest Big Lizards.
(i like Aniko. may i marry her? -i need your blessing, Bert. you may press my suit in the mean'.
of course...should it go badly...i reserve the American Right To Disavow All Knowledge.)
I don't do ironing.
And I reserve the same right.
The answer to the problem is in the recognition of private property rights. The entire concept of "publicly-owned" property is fallacious, anyhow. "Ownership" implies absolute discretion and control. There is no way "the public" can exercise anything that can be honestly construed as "ownership" over any property, be it homogenous or non-.
To test this theory, head down to your local "public park," (or any other place that is considered "the commons," for that matter), stake out a small area, and begin building yourself a shed or a workshop of sorts. Or better yet, haul your bed out to the small piece of the "commons" you've chosen, and just lie down a take a nap.
When the government-employed "security" officer (or policeman, whatever) shows up to remove or arrest you, just inform him that, as a member of "the public" in good standing, you are simply making use of your own personal share of the "public's" property.
Let me know how it goes.
Truth is, the real owner of "the commons" is an association of people who call themselves "government."
And "government," typically having a large group of heavily-armed individuals available to enforce their will, does not have to worry about the same things that private, individual owners of property have to worry about; particularly when the property in question serves as an economic commodity or asset.
See, government doesn't have to concern itself with profitability, for one thing, as it has the power to expropriate money from it's subjects by force of arms; and it has the power to effect compulsory exchanges anyhow,through taxation and expenditure.
When the profit motive is removed from the economic process, the guidelines for rational calculation as well as the incentive for preservation and manitenance of scarce resources is subverted, or else abolished entirely.
That is the underlying true nature of the "Tragedy of the Commons."
For a detailed philosophical and practical argument in favor of universal private property rights, see this excellent essay by Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Ethics and Economics of Private Property.
Your argument is a diversion, and it is totally irrelevant.
All property known as "the commons" is owned by a government entity. Rhetorically, they are said to belong "to the public," but there is no real, tangible entity called "the public." In practice, they belong to the government; more specifically, whichever bureaucracy is put in charge of the given property, or infrastructure, or whatever.
The point is they are not owned by a private individual, who can make rational economic calculations, and who would have a guiding incentive to preserve and to maintain the property the given property or asset.
Governments cannot make rational economic calculations, and have no guiding incentive to preserve and maintain, because they are immune from the natural market forces that act upon private individuals in free enterprise. The profit motive, which is the essential guide in making economic calculation, is absent from government functions, and does not figure into their considerations concerning how they operate "public" commodities.
This is why all socialist nations end up turning into polluted wastelands with depleted resources; because rational economic calculation is impossible, and the incentive to preserve and maintain scarce resources that is present among privately-owned commodities, assets, and enterprise, is absent when the state assumes ownership of property and the factors of production.
The high seas are owned by nobody (or everybody, if you like). That is quite different from publicly-owned land in a municipal park or the like. If you don't see that difference, you are the one who is dimwitted.
We hire police to protect "publicly held" land in parks, etc. but nobody protects the "commons" of the ocean or the atmosphere.
Your assertion that governments "cannot make rational economic calculations, and have no guiding incentive to preserve and maintain" is patently false. The national park system is a clear counterexample. Only when private, profit-seeking entities subvert government are public lands degraded...as oil drilling, mining and logging companies have done on publicly-owned lands with increasing intensity and encouragement by the present administration.
I'm going to try and make this as clear and concise as possible, and hope that you take the time to absorb it, because I get the distinct impression that you're a rather intelligent man, and I'm certain that all this is within your intellectual grasp.
The "Tragedy of the Commons" is strictly a collectivist phenomenon. Were private property rights and economic liberty generally upheld and enforced under the law, then the issues that characterize the Tragedy of the Commons would not exist.
Let's take your example of overgrazing first. The issues that characterize the "tragedy" occur precisely because of the fact that private property rights are absent from the equation. Note that "overgrazing" is a non-issue where privately-owned farmlands are concerned. This is because the farmer is the private owner of the land being grazed, and stands to profit from its upkeep. He has a guiding incentive to keep the land sufficiently seeded; the value, profitability, and utility of his land are all dependent upon it.
But, where property rights are denied by the state (as the state is the only institution in society which has both the presumptive authority to deny private property rights, and the armed power to enforce it), it is quite different. The herdsman has no guiding incentive to see to the presrvation and continued utility of the land in question; as he not only does not stand to directly profit from his efforts, but that some other herdsman would soon come along who would be the one to directly profit from those efforts.
Thus, the "tragedy of the commons" in your illustration is a direct product of coercive government intervention to deny private property rights to individuals who make use of the land.
"there are many examples of private industry polluting streams with mine tailings or toxic waste from hydraulic mining, etc."
Once again, your presumed indictment of capitalism is nothing other than the result of government failure to observe, respect, and enforce private property rights.
For starters, the massive befouling of the air, land and water in this country, by private industry, automobiles, etc., constitute a direct assault, not just on much of our property, but on our person; in our lungs, on our skin, in our bloodstreams. The question we should be asking is, why don't the courts recognize our common-law rights of property? The fact is that since the first days of modern air and water pollution, the courts declined to hold major industry accountable for their crimes. They instead adopted a collectivist doctrine that "the public welfare" was served by the growth of the industries, and that "the public welfare" was more important than individual property rights.
This doctrine is morally akin to if the courts had declared that "the public welfare" is served by low-cost production of goods, and thus slavery should not be abolished.
If the courts had ruled in favor of private property rights back then, then the world would be an entirely different place today. Had private industry been held financially and legally responsible for the damage they did to peoples' property back then, the incentive would have been to develop non-polluting technologies long ago, and we never would have gotten to this point.
But still, if the government would, even today, allow private property rights in the ownership of rivers and streams, then the owners of the rivers and streams would not allow them to be polluted; not without significant cost to the polluters, anyhow, which would spawn the incentive to invest in the development of cleaner technologies.
And the high seas absolutely are owned by governments; individual nation-states generally "own" the oceans and seas immediately surrounding their territory for some hundreds of miles, and the U.N. claims ownership over much of the rest. Even what is not directly owned by governments in theory, is owned by them in practical fact, by virtue of their being the ones who coercively prevent anyone else from being able to exercise rights of ownership.
In regards to this fact, allow me to quote Professor Rothbard:
"There is a vitally important area in which the absence of
private property in the resource has been and is causing,
not only depletion of resources, but also a complete failure
to develop vast potential reÂsources. This is the potentially
enormously productive ocean resource. The oceans are in
the international public domain, i.e., no person, comÂpany,
or even national government is allowed property rights in
parts of the ocean. As a result, the oceans have remained
in the same primitive state as was the land in the precivilized
days before the development of agriculture. The way of
production for primitive man was "hunting-and-gathering":
the hunting of wild animals and the gathering of fruits,
berries, nuts, and wild seeds and vegetables. Primitive
man worked pasÂsively within his environment instead
of acting to transform it; hence he just lived off the land
without attempting to remould it. As a result, the land
was unproductive, and only a relatively few tribesmen
could exist at a bare subsistence level. It was only with
the development of agriculture, the farming of the
soil, and the transformation of the land through farming
that productivity and living standards could take giant leaps
forward. And it was only with agriculture that civilization
could begin. But to permit the development of agriculture
there had to be private property rights, first in the fields
and crops, and then in the land itself.
With respect to the ocean, however, we are still in the primitive,
unproductive hunting and gathering stage. Anyone can capture fish
in the ocean, or extract its resources, but only on the run, only as
hunters and gatherers. No one can farm the ocean, no one can engage
in aquaculture. In this way we are deprived of the use of the immense
fish and mineral resources of the seas. For example, if anyone tried to
farm the sea and to increase the productivity of the fisheries by fertilizers,
he would immediately be deprived of the fruits of his efforts because he
could not keep other fishermen from rushing in and seizing the fish.
And so no one tries to fertilize the oceans as the land is fertilized.
FurÂthermore, there is no economic incentive, in fact, there is every
disÂincentive, for anyone to engage in technological research in the
ways and means of improving the productivity of the fisheries, or in
extracting the mineral resources of the oceans. There will only be
such incentive when property rights in parts of the ocean are as fully
allowed as propÂerty rights in the land. Even now there is a simple but
effective technique that could be used for increasing fish productivity:
parts of the ocean could be fenced off electronically, and through this
readily available electronic fencing, fish could be segregated by size.
By preventing big fish from eating smaller fish, the production of fish
could be increased enormously.
And if private property in parts of the ocean were permitÂted, a vast
flowering of aquaculture would create and multiply ocean resources
in numerous ways we cannot now even foresee.
National governments have tried vainly to cope with the problem
of fish depletion by placing irrational and uneconomic restrictions
on the total size of the catch, or on the length of the allowable
season. In the cases of salmon, tuna, and halibut, technological
methods of fishing have thereby been kept primitive and
unproductive by unduly shortÂening the season and injuring the
quality of the catch and by stimuÂlating overproduction, and
underuse during the year, of the fishing fleets. And of course
such governmental restrictions do nothing at all to stimulate the
growth of aquaculture. As Professors North and Miller write:
"Fishermen are poor because they are forced to use inefficient
equipment and to fish only a small fraction of the time [by the
governmental regulations] and of course there are far too many
of them. The consumer pays a much higher price for red salmon
than would be necessary if efficient methods were used. Despite
the ever-growing intertwining bonds of regulations, the preservation
of the salmon run is still not assured.
The root of the problem lies in the current non-ownership arrangement.
It is not in the interests of any individual fisherman to concern himself
with perpetÂuation of the salmon run. Quite the contrary: It is rather
in his interests to catch as many fish as he can during the season."
In contrast, North and Miller point out that private property rights in
the ocean, under which the owner would use the least costly and
most efficient technology and preserve and make productive the
resource itself, is now more feasible than ever: "The invention of
modern elecÂtronic sensing equipment has now made the policing
of large bodies of water relatively cheap and easy."
The growing international conflicts over parts of the ocean only
furÂther highlight the importance of private property rights in this
vital area. For as the United States and other nations assert their
sovereignty 200 miles from their shores, and as private companies
and governments squabble over areas of the ocean; and as trawlers,
fishing nets, oil drillers, and mineral diggers war over the same areas
of the ocean, property rights become increasingly and patently more
important.
You say that the courts don't recognize "individual property rights" when it comes to the atmosphere. That is because there is no legal basis for property rights when it comes to atmosphere...or the high seas. They are "commons" that are the subject of this article. How many times do I have to repeat...NOBODY OWNS THEM! That is the point of the article!
Your quote reinforces my point that nobody owns the high seas beyond the claimed boundaries by various nations. He claims that property rights should be established, and I will not comment on that one way or the other, but the fact is that there are NO property rights on the high seas beyond claimed national boundaries, and the harvesting of wildlife in those areas is subject to the Tragedy of the Commons that is the subject of this article
Of course no one "owns" the atmosphere. But we do own our lungs. When the atmosphere is poisoned, so are we poisoned.
A corporation that dumps toxins into the atmosphere should be prosecuted the same as if someone walked into your neighborhood and let loose a cannister of toxic poison.
As to other resources (streams, fisheries, land, minerals, etc.), I understand
that "NOBODY OWNS THEM!" I think I've sufficiently made my point -- that that is the problem! If they are productive or potentially productive resources (meaning: not the air!), that are being appropriated as an economic resource, and still nobody owns them, then it must necessarily be because someone is preventing the establishment of private property rights (hint: it's the government).
If the government has to use threats of coercion to prevent the establishment of property rights over any resource, than they are subverting immutable principles of natural and economic laws, and thus setting the stage for the "tragedy."
In my previous comment I said, "Common resources, such as the high seas or the atmosphere are NOT owned by anyone."
So obviously you are NOT reading what I have to say at all. The article goes on and on about the Grand Banks fisheries. Did you actually read it?
Sigh. This is a waste of time. Please go READ what I wrote in the article and READ what I said in the comments and stop trying to put words in my mouth by deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying.
" It has to do with the inherent nature of humans to exploit resources that are NOT owned by government entities that can (attempt to) control their exploitation."... and then: "Common resources, such as the high seas or the atmosphere are NOT owned by anyone, and can be exploited by anyone. "
But then I pointed out that "the high seas" in fact are owned by governments -- either outright or implicitly, and you have not even attempted to challenge this obvious truism -- so now we are left simply with "the atmosphere."
The only "commons" resource, which is not directly or implicitly owned, controlled, allocated or distributed by government, is the air.
And as I've stated several times, the "tragedy" associated with the air resource, is not a failure due to freedom, capitalism, laissez-faire, etc., but a failure of government to do the one single thing that it has any just, legitimate, and natural authority to do, and that is protect and uphold individual property rights; in this case, the property being one's own body, and our inherent right to breathe air that is not poisoned by the direct actions of others.
"The article goes on and on about the Grand Banks fisheries. Did you actually read it?"
Yes, I did. Did you read my comment, two prior from this one? The one that begins "You don't seem to get it"?
The reason why the issues associated with the Tragedy of the Commons occur in fisheries, is because private property rights are absent from the equation!
That is, in fact, the entirety of the whole issue, the lack of property rights being established, respected, and defended under the law. I've laid out the logical explanation for why this is so more than once in this thread. The problem is not "human nature," or "capitalism." The problem is government intervention aimed at preventing or subverting the establishment and free exercise of property rights.
And what is Bert's proposal? To start "thinking of the entire earth as 'the commons'"!!!
In effect, to set the stage for the Tragedy, to occur in every resource, all over the globe, universally!
(1) The depletion and degrading of resources occurs only in "the commons," where private property rights are denied.
(2) Where private property rights are established and enforced, resources are preserved and continued (such as in private fisheries, forests, and farmlands).
So how is it that you think the logical end to this syllogism would be (3) In order to insure the preservation and continuance of resources, we should deny private property rights universally, throughout the world?!?!?!
Perhaps. The obvious question to follow is: How do we get everyone to start treating everything on earth as if it belonged to them personally?
The answer that collectivist-minded people such as yourself will generally resort to, is this: We make every resource on Earth the responsibility of some international governmental agency, and establish a set of compulsory regulations, regarding the allocation and rationing of these resources, which everyone will be forced to follow.
In other words; we assume that we can appoint some disinterested, altruistic group of humans, give them coercive power to act as owners and arbiters of all natural resources, and expect this to overcome the problems associated that you attribute to "human nature"!
Truth is, we don't need everyone to think and act as if every resource on earth belonged to them personally. All we need to do, is allow the establishment of private property rights in the resources themselves, and the owners of the resources will be responsible for the preservation and upkeep (just as the private owners of forests, fisheries, farms, mines, and ranges already do), and common law would require that everyone else be prevented from degrading or otherwise undermining the integrity of the property of others.
If you read what I said, I acknowledged that human nature...or at least its capitalistic manifestations...must change if we are going to survive. That won't happen overnight...it will be a long process. We are in a race against time...can we learn to live within the limits of our planet before it is too late? I don't know, but as our predicament becomes clearer to more people, I am hopeful that the light will dawn. I am starting to see some hopeful signs, as I said in Part 2
Private owners of forests, whose livelihoods depend on the continued utility and value of their property, are stupid enough to "clearcut and stripmine them."
Are you really that dense? Do you even bother with giving any serious thought to these idiotic fallacies you hold?
I guess there's just no getting through to you. It seems like you won't even address the points I've tried to get across to you in this thread, let alone challenge them; aside from just an a priori dismissal of something here and there, as if it could not be correct just because Bert B. doesn't know anything about it.
I was hopeful; that, at least, I could get you to admit to the very common sense principle that private owners of scarce resources -- such as forests, fisheries, and mines -- take care to insure the continued productivity and value of their investment, if for nothing else than their own sheer economic self-interest... but apparently your collectivist brainwashing is so thorough that you aren't even able to recognize something as plainly common sense and obvious as this.
I give up, Bert. Capitalism, bad; Socialism, good. You win.
When you want to discuss things intelligently, let me know.
Why do organizations like The Nature Conservancy exist? If private ownership of property resulted in responsible management of resources, such organizations would have no reason to exist.
You are either in denial or too dense to even understand what is happening in the world.
Either way, I feel sorry for you.
Because nobody ever does something for a gain in the short term that will cause problems in the long term? Come on, Steve. Don't you mean that if those owners want to clear cut their forests and strip-mine their land, they have an "unalienable right" to do so, and if other people don't like it, that's just too damned bad?
We don't need lawyers (nor further scientific research) to confirm that harm has been done at a massive scale, over many years. We know what causes the harm and the blame is with politicians who have failed to act and continue to do so. Proposing to delay the much-needed action and instead telling people to let lawyers and courts think about things, that is even worse than having no proposal at all. All this talk about property is just a diversion, a smokescreen designed to cause further stalling.
Instead, we need effective policies. Government needs to tackle global warming head-on, rather than to hand decisions over to committees, lawyers, 'innovators' or 'experts' who will only stall things even further. We need a package of measures, including fees on fossil fuel, with the proceeds used to support local supply and installation of alternative ways to produce energy, such as with wind and solar power. Government only needs to insist that alternatives are clean and safe - market mechanisms can further sort out what works best where. That is the most effective way to deal with the problem.
Right... the "Nature Conservancy" exists, therefore, their take on the problem, as well as their proposed solutions, must be correct.
This is what your whole argument here boils down to, Bert; your inability to let go of a very basic fallacy.
Private ownership of resources does result in more responsible management (as the people whose economic self-interest is contingent upon their continued utility and value are the ones responsible for their management); the problem is that JUST A FRACTION OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES EXISTING IN AMERICA, AS IN THE WORLD, ARE PRIVATELY OWNED!!!!
Thus, the widescale phenomenon of the "Tragedy of the Commons."
Get it yet?
As to the Nature Conservancy; my guess is that the people involved with it are victims of the same fallacious outlook as you, Bert. They probably don't recognize that the "Tragedy of the Commons" is a phenomenon that occurs solely due to the fact that private ownership is disallowed.
I guess they, like you, have never bothered with asking why the most socialist countries in the world -- the ones where all resources whatsoever were considered "the commons," and private property was absolutely abolished -- are also the ones that it turns out are the most degraded, depleted, polluted, absolute filthy wastelands.
There is a definite causal relationship at work here. It's not mere coincidence.
You're ascribing the causes and effects completely bass-ackwards. You're insisting that the way we overcome the problems we have, that were so much worse in the Soviet Union, is to become more like them; to do things a bit more like they did it -- that ought to really straighten things out...
On the other hand, private ownership of the great plains resulted in denuding the natural flora, overcultivation and horrendous dustbowl storms. The land was..and still is...privately owned. Now, those same farmers are drawing down the Ogallala Aquifer...a common resource. When it is depleted, the great plains will become a desert. Who can stop this? Only government. A classical example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
The government is now buying back huge tracts of land in the Everglades that were drained and cultivated, destroying the natural ecosystems. It is going to cost billions, but the natural north-to-south drainage of the Everglades will be restored, reversing the damage done by PRIVATE OWNERS.
I am sure I could find many more examples. Your bald statements...that you have repeated time and again...that private ownership results in responsible management of resources is just plain wrong no matter how many times you say it. And although you have denied it, international fisheries are the prime example of overexploitation of commonly held resources. It is you who are denying reality, Steve.
Yet another example of the Tragedy of the Commons. In this case the rivers are owned by the public..."held in trust" by the state governments, so the government had the authority to halt the damage. If the rivers were somehow privately owned (how could that work?) the owners would have been free to continue their pollution without constraint. Certainly government could do nothing...especially if they had to operate on funding from "voluntary" taxes as you propose.
" Japan is a good example of a country where the rulers stopped virtually all cutting of forests centuries ago."
And I'm sure the Japanese people are happy to be that much poorer because of it.
"although you have denied it, international fisheries are the prime example of overexploitation of commonly held resources."
I've never denied that. I stated that private fisheries do not suffer from depletion or over-exploitation; only "commonly-held" fisheries suffer that fate, because there is no one with the either the legal right to stop the exploitation, nor the guiding incentive to maintain the utility, value, and management of the resource.
"In the early history of our nation, factories, farmers, and everybody else dumped raw sewage, toxic chemicals...anything they wanted to get rid of in our rivers. Hardly what I would call responsible behavior."
I suppose that was made a lot easier by the fact that nobody had property rights over the land being polluted; and thus there was no one to hold the polluters legally accountable for their actions.
"If the rivers were somehow privately owned (how could that work?) the owners would have been free to continue their pollution without constraint."
First, it could "work" by government auctioning off the rivers.
Second; sure, the owners of the particular rivers would be free to pollute their waters as much as they liked; so long as they devised some wonderous breakthrough technology to insure that the water from their part of the river didn't run into anything else, carrying their waste into the property of others, and subjecting them to legal recourse for violating someone else's property rights.
And, of course, also provided that they are people who enjoy spoiling and destroying the value of their own investments.
"Certainly government could do nothing...especially if they had to operate on funding from "voluntary" taxes as you propose."
Well, if the government did operate by voluntary taxation, and it was not able to function or survive, then surely this is a clear indication that the particular government was not fit to survive. If a free people are not willing to voluntarily cooperate with or fund any institution, then this is a sign that the institution is not wanted or needed, and has no good reason to go on existing; unless a self-sufficient entity. If Home Depot cannot get enough people to voluntarily cooperate with them, and offer the vlaue they have to exchange with them for goods and services rendered, then this is a clear signal that Home Depot needs to fold up shop. They are wasting scarce resources if they continue to manufacture products that free individuals are not voluntarily willing to buy.
In any case, they would have no right whatsoever to take money from people and to foist their "services" upon us through violence and the threat thereof -- and neither does any institution have that legitimate right; whether they call themselves "government" or any other name.
You have criticized "statism" relentlessly, pushed your ideas of utopian anarchic libertarianism here for some time. I also look forward into the future to a time when nation states are obsolescent, and every person on the planet views himself as a citizen of Earth, not of the United States or Russia or whatever.
Nations breed...DUH...nationalism, which is tribalism writ large. Nationalism, and its potent emotional fuel, religious faith, have been responsible for most of the human conflict that has occurred on this planet since a historical record has been maintained...and probably for a long time before that, when hunter-gatherer groups grew to tribes, villages, towns, cities and finally to nations. I do not think we will have true, lasting peace on this planet until nationalism and religion are consigned to the dustbin where they surely belong.
The roots of nationalism are clear and understandable. Those early hunter-gatherer groups learned that there was safety in numbers. A larger group had a better chance of survival. Competition between those groups quickly led to the "us vs. them" mentality that continues to this day. After centuries, it is either programmed into our genes or so embedded in our social structures that we are brainwashed by it...just as many are brainwashed by religious faith.
I too would like to see the end of "statism," but in its place, we will need an overarching benign Big Brother that monitors events on the planet, with the explicit goal of preserving and protecting the planet in perpetuity for generations to come...both human and nonhuman.
We do not OWN this planet. We are only temporary occupants, and our PRIMARY goal should be to leave it better than we found it...but above all, habitable for our successors.
And before you get a chance to point it out, I admit that my views are as utopian as yours.
I just read an article about a recent purchase of a huge tract of land from a big corporation that was doing sugarcane farming in the Everglades. It was in a magazine that I have apparently since discarded. It is part of a multibillion dollar buyback of land by the government to restore the ecosystem and habitat for many wild species that were being driven to extinction. Here is an overview of the project from the Audubon web site.
LINK
I find irony in the fact that you are apparently able to discern the purely habit-driven, emotionally-charged, self-destructive nature of nationalism and religion with clarity; and yet are blind to the same exact characteristics and tendencies of statism.
You commented to me at some point recently, that you saw an analogy between my confidence in my own beliefs and the dogmatic faith of the religious. But I would point out; that religion is essentially faith in the unprovable and hence unknowable. I am sure of the things I believe precisely because they are demonstrably true, and have been proven so by the theories derived from the science of praxeology in combination with the practical experience of history. Just because it may not appear to be so at a superficial glance, doesn't make it not so. Centuries ago, people were denounced as heretics, and even suffered torture and murder, for postulating that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa. At the superficial glance of the uneducated observer, it certainly may appear that the Sun moves around the Earth, even to the point where those ignorant to the science and the mechanics involved would ridicule the suggestion of any different.
I can say with certainty, because I have studied these things intensely for the last two years (and I began, believe it or not, looking at the world from a perspective not much different from yours), that the progress, prosperity, and overall well-being of humanity is best served according to the relative degree of liberty each individual enjoys; and this includes the freedoms inherent in the individual's right to exercise dominion over those parts of nature that the given individual has harnessed and transformed through their own labor (property rights), or else has otherwise rightfully aquired, whether through trade or bequest.
"I too would like to see the end of "statism," but in its place, we will need an overarching benign Big Brother that monitors events on the planet, with the explicit goal of preserving and protecting the planet in perpetuity for generations to come"
I'm glad you went ahead and pointed out that this is "utopian," at least you know that it is, even if you don't quite recognize or understand why it is.
What you are proposing, in effect, is to give a body of human beings authority to coercively impose arbitrary compulsions and restraints over the rest of mankind; and apparently expecting that this could happen without resulting in all the corruption, incompetence, mismanagement, malfeasance, and outright tyranny exhibited in all other forms of statism, democratic or otherwsie.
There are very logical and discernible reasons why socio-economic central planning always has adverse, undesirable effects -- even when the planners are operating with the best and most benign of intentions -- effects that often result in the worsening of the conditions that the planners are seeking to correct.
The best thing I can do here is to direct you to F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," for the explanations of these truths. Hayek lived in Austria throughout the rise of National Socialism, and then fled to England just before it would have been too late for him to escape (he was Jewish). Hayek was a very brilliant man, a top-notch economist with a gift for seeing the emotional and sociological undercurrents at work in society. He wrote "The Road to Serfdom" as a warning to the Western liberal democracies, because he was beginning to see the same patterns of thought and popular sentiment arise in Britain and the US. He (correctly) predicted that if the trends occuring at that time continued -- if the fallacies inherent in the economic policies and the collectivist ideology were not sufficiently refuted and subsequently repudiated -- then what we knew of as "fascism" would eventually become manifest in our nations, as well. His book explains, in great detail, why this is so, how it is that the collectivist ideas result in tyranny (even under democracy, as it did in Germany).
If you read it, I'm sure you'll come to understand why what you propose would be far from just merely unsuccessful; it would result in worldwide despotism.
"We do not OWN this planet."
True; because there is no existing entity called "we," that has the capacity to exercise ownership over anything, let alone the entire planet.
But every individual has a right to own that which they labor to create -- or that part (and only that part) of nature which they labor to transform --, or that which they rightfully aquire through contract, trade, or bequest.
Would you say that I, or anyone else, has a right to walk into your home, and threaten violence against you if you do not leave, so that I (or they) can move in? After all, I might say, you cannot own it; I have just as much right to live on that particular patch of land as you do! What gives you any more right to occupy that space than I?
Only individuals (or voluntary associations of individuals) can possess property rights. When you figure out what it is that gives you the right of dominion over your house, your yard, or any other property that you might possess, then you have figured out the entire essence of individual property rights.
Which brings me to a thought I had earlier: You stated previously that the Nature Conservancy was "busily buying up wilderness tracts and donating them to government for preservation."
This, to me, indicates the likelihood that the "Nature Conservancy" is driven more by ideology than by a desire to preserve resources.
If they are buying the land, then why would they then donate it to the government, considering the probability that the government will some day turn around and either lease or sell the tracts of land to one of their politically-favored crony contractors?
Why not just retain the right of ownership of the land, and work to preserve and manage it themselves?
Could it be, just maybe, that the people involved are driven more by socialist ideology (government as owner of all resources and all factors of production), then they are by environmentalist sentiment?
Indeed, if the environmentalist groups spent as much time lobbying the people as they did lobbying politicians; convincing people that certain natural resources were being ruined and that their particular group could manage and preserve it better; and accepted donations from those who they successfully convince (voluntary donations by free people); and then bought the property themselves and took the resources out the realm of productive capacity; then they would probably have been more successful at their stated goals than they have been.
But that kind of thing would fall under the category of "free market" activity, and would not involve government exercising compuslory restrictions over society, hence it is categorically rejected.
They place legal restrictions on the dispensation of the land. I have queried them for specifics on this, and will provide them when they respond. You could have learned this yourself if you cared to look into it.
Nor does it prove it to be so, or "demonstrably true." It remains, simply, your opinion.
The Amerinds who preceded us in North America were far more responsible in the use of the land and its resources. As hunter-gatherer nomads, they had no concept of "property rights," and were perplexed by our notion of land ownership. But they revered nature, and took only what they needed to survive. They were understandably horrified when white hunters shot bison for the fun of it, or for the hides, leaving the carcasses to rot on the prairie. The believed in killing only what they needed, and using the entire animal, wasting nothing. Which group was more responsible? And which group advocated ownership of the land?
What a silly statement.
Even if the government did agree to whatever terms the Nature Conservancy demanded at the time of the transaction, it's not as if they couldn't just go ahead and reneg anytime they wanted. They could simply invoke the "public interest" or "general welfare" as pressing justifications for their deciding to lease the property to nominally "private" contractors (I consider any contractor that engages in compulsory transactions by profiting off of money taken by the taxpayers as having forfeited the right to be called a "private" contractor -- in doing so, they have effectively become an appendage of the state, they are essentially a bureaucracy now).
I know if I headed an environmentalist group, and I had purchased land for the purpose of preserving or revitalizing it, then I would want to see to it personally; not rely on the capacity for square-dealing of an institution peopled with such thieves, liars, murderers, and frauds as the U.S. federal government.
You believe that in your utopia, individuals will "do the right thing" and protect and preserve the earth if they own it. And that voluntary group actions will protect them from any "bad guys" who might subvert their individual "rights." Government is unnecessary.
I believe that society will always need protection from those "bad guys," and that ad hoc informal associations will not only NOT work...they would be quickly replaced with more formal associations (known as governments). Ultimately, I would hope that a single overarching government would emerge that defines and enforces the rights of every individual on the planet, whilst pursuing a consistent agenda...preservation of the planet for future generations in perpetuity.
I believe that our motives and ultimate goals are the same. What we differ on is the means to attain those ends.
Okay, Bert. And I don't trust that Galileo guy, either. I don't care what all the scientists say; if they think the Earth travels around the Sun, that's their opinion. I don't have to believe it.
"The Amerinds who preceded us in North America were far more responsible in the use of the land and its resources. As hunter-gatherer nomads, they had no concept of "property rights," and were perplexed by our notion of land ownership."
See, Bert, they could afford to live as hunter-gatherers, and to have no concept of property rights; because their lifestyles were so primitive, and they had virtually no methods of mass production, and thus their standards of living could not grow to the extent necessary to result in the population booms that necessitate concepts of private property.
Is that what you propose? that we go back to living in teepees and hunter/gathering?
Sure, I'm game. But then I don't want to hear you bitch about our "low standard of living." You can't have it both ways. You can't moan about capitalism because some people remain poor while others don't, but then suggest that it would be better if we all were poor.
No one's going to "own the Earth." That's just a straw-man camouflage to make it look like I want one person or one corporation to own the entire planet. When in fact, that's alot more like what you want; one governing body to exercise dominion over all the resources of the Earth.
And I don't think every owner of property will always "do the right thing." But if they didn't, then the entire cost and burden of their mismanegent would fall on themselves, and not on the entire public through taxation.
If they polluted and damaged the persons or properties of others, then there are these things called Class Action Lawsuits.
No, that is not true. You apparently did not read (or understand) this article. nor did you read my piece about Adam Smith. Damage caused by overexploitation, pollution, etc. may not be apparent for many years. The individual who reaps the profit may burden future generations with horrendous problems. Future generations will pay the bills for irresponsible, selfish actions taken today. Governments can prevent such atrocities.
Oh...I forgot...your idea is that governments must operate on voluntary donations from individuals. Uh huh. Sounds like a real workable plan. (NOT!)
If a property owner "overexploits" their own property, then they hurt themselves. They effectively exit the market, opening up opportunities for expansion for others who are not as careless or incompetent; unless or until they find a way to revitalize the utility and value of their property.
Aside from that, the damage caused by pollution may not be evident for many years in the benign socialist utopia you envision, also. Same is true for individuals reaping profits that may burden future generations with horrendous problems. These things happen today, in our heavily government-"regulated" economy. What makes you think this problem would be any worse in a free society, than it has been in our collectivist-statist society, or than would be in the uber-global-collectivist-statist society you would prefer?
How is that "Governments can prevent such atrocities," but private firms in a free society couldn't? Do people possess greater insight or are they inherently more disinterested and benign, just because the source of their income is taken coercively from taxpayers?
A private liabilty-insurance or licensing-accreditation firm in a free society would have much greater incentives to perform their services effectively than government bureaucrats do in a statist society; see, the private firms wouldn't hold a coercive monopoly like government agencies do. When the FAA, or FBI, or any other government agency is shown by events to have not performed their duties adequately, they get more taxpayer-provided funds thrown at them -- kinda perverts the incentives a bit, don't you think?
Private firms rely on reputation and proven past performance alone to secure their share of the market. Or would you take the position that free people are too stupid to know how to do business only with those companies accredited (or "regulated") only by the most proven and reputable firms, yet are somehow possessed of superior wisdom and insight when it comes to electing politicians who promise to do the same jobs, only with the benefit of coercively excluding potential competition?
I know the ideas and principles associated with human liberty are alien and unfathomable to you, Bert; if it doesn't require a group of people threatening violence against all who do not bow down and serve, then your senses are offended by it. To borrow a phrase from Mencken; you long for the reassuring smell of the herd, and the authoritarian voice of the shepherd.
But that doesn't mean those ideas and principles are not perfectly valid, Bert. They may seem strange to the thoroughbred collectivist, but I assure you that freedom is not such a bad thing as you imagine.