VERY good video. The notion of the "tragedy of the commons" is and always has been a myth, and an easily demonstrable myth. You have done a fine job of explaining the dynamics of the issue. Perhaps the most interesting aspect to me is what basically amounts to a psychological projection on the part of the believers of the myth in which presents itself when they try and argue what they mistakenly 'think' would occur in the commons by applying the very greed which is built into their system of...
Hey buddy! I read some time ago "The tragedy of the commons" by Hardin and I got some crazy idea today, that private property (usually presented as solution) should also suffer from the tragedy of the commons as described by Hardin. Do you know any reference which makes such argument?
@buddhagem Your notion of private property does not seem to include the right to ones own body. In a true capitalist/libertarian society if a person infringes on the person of another through pollution or anything else they would be subject to sanction. You seem to be arguing against state crony capitalism ie. Fascism.
Unfortunately the U.S. and other countries gave up on this notion of personal responsibility withing a private property society in the very early 1900's to encourage state power
@lagreider You don't own yourself. "Ownership" implies something is possessed. You are yourself. Plus I don't see how "self ownership" implies being able to own everything you can "homestead".
@lagreider That's always the cop-out used by capitalist libertarians. They say that the markets should be completely liberated so there is no interference by the state, yet they also claim there should be strong property rights. But when presented with reality in the form of the tragedy of commons exploitation, they make claims that "they would be subject to sanction." So Ron Paul wants to end the EPA, but when an entity pollutes a river that entity is sanctioned ... somehow.
Even though capitalism obviously has a lot of problems, I feel like communal control of everything could be oppressive in it's own right. I think I'd personally like more of a middle ground, something like mutualism. But few people seem to be for that
@dubified89 Mutualism would be 1000x better than capitalism. But I think you're definition of "communal ownership" is a bit strawman-ish. Mutualism also has collective ownership i.e. worker cooperatives.
I can shred your entire argument by dissecting one two-word phrase you used - "grossly irrational". Rationality is a characteristic of individuals, and individuals only. You imply that the actions of individuals, taken in the aggregate can add up to being "grossly irrational" - irrational by whose standards - yours? Who is the divine, omniscient intellect that gets to declare the collective actions of rational beings null and void? When you eat a piece of bread, do you consider it your property?
@gergenheimer The tragedy of the commons shows that rational individuals making rational decisions leads to an irrational outcome for the group. I don't see how you don't understand this concept.
If a forest has enough trees to make 9 homes, and there are ten families in that forest, these rational individuals will destroy the forest and everyone will not have enough wood to complete their home. Bellum omnium contra omnes
Very true. The best form of governance in the world is self governance by a culture of respect for one another's share of the commonly owned resource. The solution is not to elect a central planner or make resources privately owned. The solution is to practice only two industries essential to our survival - agriculture and education, as well as to control the population according to the amount of resources we have.
Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! My only criticism/remark is why aren't those of us who see/understand this; why aren't we living on a large, rural mostly self-sufficient communes? Intellectual rationalization/argument only go so far. I think the most significant/important thing we can/could/should do is to demonstrate to the world how well this would work.
Okay, so here's a hypothetical. Let's say that you are the greedy owner of a logging company, and your company owns a massive expanse of forested land. In this situation, you are the stereotypical capitalist, complete with thin sinister mustache and interested only in maximum profit for yourself. What are you going to do with this land? Are you going to obliterate it and make money today and then never after, or are you going to keep the environment (and your income) sustainable?
@JETZcorp That's what some find as a solution to the commons problem. Except that when all land is owned, it excludes ownership of land from successive generations. That also fails to recognize that the tragedy of the commons isn't just about land management, but about all exploitation, be it economical, social, et al. What we see in industrialized countries today is the capitalists have exploited the labor market so well they're now losing profits because they've killed off demand.
If historical experience could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization. With the successive progress of a general tendency toward the abolition of institutions hindering the operation of the market economy, population figures multiplied and the masses' standard of living was raised to an unprecedented and hitherto undreamed of level. You seem to be using the word "capitalism" to describe state capitalism, not free-market capitalism.
@stephenfdavis You seem to be ignoring the fact that the transition from feudalism to capitalism was joined by massive expansion of private property, and along with it came protection rackets using the same rational self-interest which causes the tragedy of the commons. Examples: 19th Century Sicily (mafia) and Japan (yakuza), and post-Soviet Russia (mob).
10:57 , or option3, instead of giving control of the land to one person, all the herdsmen get together and democratically manage the land (It used to happen all the time).
I never really understood why "the tragedy of the commons" is so tragic. The first time I heard it, I literally said "why don't they just turn the land into a commune?"
I've found some of your videos to be informative, but you come across as hostile to libertarians and anarcho-capitalists who may not realize they're acting as vulgar libertarian puppets. They may see the title of the video and think "Angry leftist rant."
Even your argument in the video requires elaboration. Most arguments against common property are against state property or state exclusion from ownership of certain property. Argibusiness couldn't pump their runoff into the Mississippi..
..if the waterways were owned by fishermen or shrimpers or some other managed commons. But the US gov't prevents any kind of ownership and allows corporations to pollute in lakes and rivers.
Rambling but my point is you're isolating unwitting vulgar libertarians by attacking private property instead of offering commons as an alternative. Educate them rather. I know libertarian socialists have different views on property but furthering the schism btw anarchists will hurt the cause.
You say "common property," but your premise is that "property is theft." By common property, you must mean that everyone in the world has an equal share in the whole earth. Anything less is exploitation. Did you get the permission of all to take these local resources?
You say "local control," but that would mean the local group is monopolizing the land and resources. They are excluding everyone else necessarily.
This sounds like evil capitalism. Your local group is just a corporation!
Your ignorance of contemporary economics is appalling. Perhaps this is news to you but the woman awarded the Nobel Prize in economics this year was awarded it based on work, empirical scientific work, that puts to rest Hardin's ridiculous notion that commons can't work. Unlike Hardin, though, she actually uses empirical evidence rather than just make up a story about an imaginary commons. Google Elinor Ostrom. Educate yourself before saying such stupid things.
again with the pointing of fingers. stop, honestly.
"It applies to situations where there is so much distrust, and communication is so costly, and people see so little benefit to solving environmental problems that they are, effectively, trapped." - ostrom.
I never said that solving the tragedy of commons is not possible without private property. Government (non-state), social stigma or analogous methods can be used. The POINT here is that the BEST answer to the WORSTcase scenario is property
... just thinking, no matter how uneducated i am, dont you still need to treat people with respect? i mean, come on, what is all this BS that you have typed? I know you are better than that.
Are you saying landowners don't have an incentive to keep up their own land? What about resale value? If I chop down all the trees, the land is worth MUCH less and the new buyer will understand the harmonization process lowers the overall value of the land. Are you saying that resale values remain the same and that this natural occurrence is a mind game although I can see it? government's centralize every time, a truly democratic state is a fallacy. private property=the most liberty possible
@mikeshanklin If the market forces at the time mean that the most profitable thing the owner can do is to chop down these trees they will chop down the trees and not think a single sad thought on their way to the bank. The only thing capitalists do is whatever they believe at the time to be in their best interest and all too often they believe that means fucking over the rest of us and the planet.
Plenty of dumb animals shit where they eat - capitalists are no exception.
Ah I totally agree, I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is that the very same people who are destroying the world would postulate the "tragedy of the commons" and impute it on their critics...
The first time i read about the tragedy of the commons i actually understood it to be a criticism of lessez-faire capitalism or Randian type rants. It just fits like a glove.
Only idiotic economists with their Lego version of people could possibly apply it to anarcho-socialist types of societies.
There should be a rational synthesis of anarchism and communism. Certain institutional structures are needed, and certain commonly operated protective and restrictive functions, but freedoms should be maximized economically and socially.
More appropriately, The Tragedy of the Free for All.
This is certainly not an indictment of proper commons, as you have so eloquently shown, but I must disagree with you regarding private property, the supposed indictment of which is both unfounded and completely preposterous.
We are not animals, there is the Bio-sphere and the noos-sphere, our conscious awareness and ability to use our minds is the diff, we can choose to cooperate with each other, some of us any way. the tragedy in the commons is that some are stealing the resources of others all over the planet or waging was to control and dominate.
buddhagem: the private property under Statism is very different than the private property under Anarchism. In Statism you can purchase as many land you can under the protection of the state, in anarchy there's no state therefore you can only truly own as much land as you can control. Private property is not a tragedy.
from 5:10... "unlike common or personal property, capitalist property is not valued for itself or its utility it is valued for the revenue it produces for its owner..."
Do you support this statement as true? (question directed towards buddhagem)
If someone likes a plot of land, purposes may include seclusion, scenery, abundance of fruit trees etc etc, is your position that these things can't be valued by the owner, if he won't use them for monetary gain? or does Rev include non-monetary gain?
Pre WW2 Germany, the Soviet Union, the Camere Rouge, the Klan, Imperialist Japan, Al Queda etc and several societies in the middle east. Very large groups with very large scale destructive tendencies that required the collective cooperation of many. Ideas supported by a collective are intrinsically no different than ideas supported by an individual, except that the individuals voice is lost in the former. I think your support from history claim is highly selective.
Very large groups? Or very small groups with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and violence over a given area? None of your examples are examples of large groups, at least in comparison to the population. It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about and you're unfamiliar with the real history of commons. I'd suggest you do a little research. Good luck.
Pre WW2 Germany, the Soviet Union, Imperialist Japan, several societies in the middle east *all* boast/boasted an extremely large popular support base. Secondly the use of force or violence is no safer in the hands of a group than in the hands of individuals as Im showing.
Its pretty clear you arent addressing my points. "Good luck"
It's even an aberration by 19th century standards, Van.
Proudhon was horrified by the anti-propertariansism generated by those who misread "What is Property?" and so wrote "Theory of Property" in which he ENDORSES private property and calls private property the greatest revolutionary force known to man and the only insurer of individual liberty.
Benjamin Tucker then echoed this sentiment, among others. Tucker actually stated that any who reject private property cannot be anarchists.
I'm not overly familiar with Proudhon's theory of property. As I understand it, however, he argued for a modified form of private property that excluded absentee landlordism. Tucker's economics views were based around a labour theory of value and, by extension, a labour theory of property.
Proudhon's "Theory of Property" is a reluctant endorsement of all private (non-state provided) property. In it, Proudhon retains some of his aesthetic utopianism, but makes the pragmatic case for absolute private property, for absolute individual sovereignty.
Tucker based some of his earlier writings on the labor theory of value, but never prioritized them.. and rejected them in later life.
In 1913, he wrote "Capitalism is at least tolerable; the same cannot be said of socialism or communism."
No worries. There's a lot like that from his late-life correspondence:
"Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property.
Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist."
Thanks for removing that ridiculous comment. If you have "large public support" you don't need to resort to strong-arm tactics. And I guess you realized that none of those dealt with the issue of the commons which is the whole point.
I didnt remove it. It appeared to be associated with the wrong comment, so I re-entered it. The reason I found your channel was because of an comment you left on confederalsocialist's channel. But browsing through your other vids its becoming apparent your only M.O is to quickly dismis dissenting opinions with brash insults of superior intellect. PS the 'strong arm tacticts' were absent during the formative years of many of the groups I mentioned and only directed towards outside groups.
LOOK, we just need a fair law which states land covered by forest is owned by no one (by the government but which doesnt do anything with it). and second, nobody owns the fish in the lake. and rivers should just be kept un polluted and thats it.
why do 'libertarian' capitalists consider all anti-capitalist theories "big -government" in their essence? Please! Familiarize yourself with genuine leftist economic theory and not attempt to pigeon hole all types of socialistic economics with the Soviet Union. The majority of the historical left would've never agreed with Leninist and Stalinist policies. Besides, both men bastardized Marx's writings to attempt to fit their own needs in Russia. Furthermore, Marx was not the first socialist!
I am sorry governments abuse resources the most because they need the capital to make up for lacking of productivity in other areas.
Ie Mexico oil industry. Government run and they caused the collapse of their oil industries production because it was a cash cow for state. No reinvestment or care for reservoir engineering.
The tragedy of the commons arises not from property rights, but from inadequate property rights.
For example, chickens & cows are not in danger of extinction. Some varieties of whales & elephants may be engangered just because there are no well-defined property rights to whales or (in most countries) to African elephants.
Buddhagem needs to read some Hayek. Or at least an introductory text on economics. Try Gwartney's.
I totally agree. He doesn't understand anything about how large organisations operate. Any economist - studier of human action - would cringe at the thought of what he suggests.
Economics is just an inconvenience to Leftists who just want to impose themselves on the rest of the world and rob them of their primary means of interaction.
The teachings on the first Paramita of Mahayan Buddhism teaches that generosity with the property of others is not generosity. Violently enforced wealth redistribution is not generosity. What he teaches is not Buddhism or anacharism, it is just another a form of dictatorship of the proletariat.
That's funny. It was the Buddha who smashed the Caste system, through the idea of karma on its head, and opened up the Sangha to women. Sounds like a leftist to me. As far as your Paramitas are concerned, you can keep them. I'm a Theravadin Buddhist and while I admire much of Mahayana Buddhism I think it falls far from the mark when it comes to accurately following and implementing the teachings of the Buddha. You keep on worshipping property. I'll fight for social justice. Peace.
It's not about worshiping property, it is about respecting property. Do any Buddhist monks subvert the law to make it illegal not to give them food? No, they ASK for it. They respect the property of others - whether it is Theravadin, Mahayana or Vajrayana.
And, again, it is very arrogant to claim the disregard of the caste system and the equal treatment of women only for the left - but I am used to this now. Yawn.
We've gone over this already. The Dalai Lama admits that he doesn't understand much about politics or economics.
He is a politician not a political-economics theorist. He says he's Marxist to win over the people of China. If, like me, you sit down and compare Marxism t Rothbardian Anarchism or Minarchism Buddhism adheres much more closely with the latter.
And he's claiming to be half-Marxist to win over the Chinese, because the Chinese are oh-so-willing to give up Tibet to a left-wing monk! Not a right-wing one...
Because the Chinese impose an idoelogical litmus test on any takers.
I happen to know a fine bridge in Brooklyn I can sell.
Yes: he is the leader of the Tibetan government in exile.
The answer to your second point is also yes.
The answer to your third third point is also yes.
I don't understand the third. I think you are trying to be a smart ass but it isn't really working for you.
If you think Buddhism is left-wing then find anything Buddhist that says you should use the coercive force of the state to redistribute wealth. There's nothing that says that.
Thank you for basically saying that the Dalai Lama is lying.
"If you think Buddhism is left-wing then find anything Buddhist that says you should use the coercive force of the state to redistribute wealth. There's nothing that says that."
Right - because the Dalai Lama didn't tax anyone before 1950...
Yeah and in Tibet there were Lamas who claimed they could fly and walk through walls. Is that Buddhism? No, it isn't. Do leaving offerings to river spirits and trees have anything to do with Buddhism? No. Does taxation have anything to do with Buddhism? No.
Just name one piece of Buddhist literature that advocates taxation. Just ONE. There aren't any because 'generosity with the possessions of others is not generosity' as stated in Je Gampopa's 'Jewelled Ornament of Liberation'.
No, private property is a system whereby individuals get to express their needs by buying goods from those who best meet them. All exchange is free and non-coerced. It is by very nature not exploitative because property is obtained by offering a service or a good to someone at a price both parties are freely willing to accept.
When violence is involved it becomes another matter entirely.There is nothing wrong with voluntarily living in a communal society either. Coercion is the problem.
Please *don't* educate yourself. You're not up to the job. Get someone to teach you about economics, someone with real training in economics, not big-government ideology.
Buddhagem: Voluntary Tribalism requires heavy in-culturation (a mono-culture), religion/mysticism, and warfare. The British settlers were just another tribe with different cultural values -- they were under the King or under Democracy they never saw the light of capitalism (in the "truly" free-market sense), which is better worded as Market-Anarchism or Individual-Anarchism (the latter being redundant). By definition Anarchism is Individualism.
Buddhagem: You are comparing "tragedy of constitutional-monarchy," or "tragedy of constitutional-democracy" with the "tragedy of the commons." Not with "tragedy of truly free-market private property."
U.S History has only been constitutional-monarchy or constitutional-democracy (Involuntary).
An-Archims means No-Rule or Voluntary Self-Rule. A "free-society" does not allow for abdication by the healthy and capable.
I'd suggest you watch the video again. Apparently you missed something because your comments seem very confused. You can go pray to Rothbard or Austrian Economics all you want but try not to pretend it's rational or that it has anything to do with the long current of anarchist struggle against capitalism. This may not be the capitalism you dream about; but it is the capitalism that real capitalists want. If you didn't know, they happen to run the country. No please run along.
Anarcho-Buddha: Your username and comment seem to be off. I didn't make any "slights" in my comment, but you did, hmmm.
Communists and Anarchists never claim (as representative) any country that tried to implement their philosophy -- Because every implementation has been In-Voluntary and because of the many sell outs and profiteers.
The same is true for Capitalism -- There is not a "type" of Capitalism; it's a word that has been hijacked - Like: natural or organic or christian.
Well I'd guess you've never met any Anarchists then because we offer a wide range of examples of our philosophy; perhaps the best and largest scale example being Spain 1936 to 1939, but there are plenty of other smaller examples from around the world. As for the communists, I'll let them defend themselves. Capitalism may have been hijacked but it's a simple economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. Simple. You? You're just silly.
Anarchobuddha: I was an Anarcho-Syndicalist 15 to 20 years ago -- I've always be an "anarchist" -- at least by 93%, smile.
Spain was not ideal from '36 to '39 -- lots of sell-outs and of course it failed. It was not "voluntary" -- it was one group forcing another.
I'm not against "force" but if the "foce" is counter to how the society functions or how the society dreams/thinks then it will always be violent and fringe. Spain was Anarcho-Syndicalist (by-the-by).
Nobody cares what you were or think you are. And what on earth would be a 93% Anarchist? You only want to be 93% free? If you understood the concept I think you might understand what a silly thing that is. Have a good night. Be a whatever you want to be. But please go try and fool somebody else that you know what you're talking about. Try a Kindergarden class. That might work. They are pretty easy to trick at that age.
Anarchobuddha: (I like that name). Capitalism was never "highjacked" it never existed -- it never made it into fruition. What we have is Democracy -- like Socialism and Communism it is a Central Banking Union (fiat credit and fiat money) -- it is entirely InVoluntary.
I don't like the word and try to avoid it whenever debating. It can never be reclaimed -- just like "natural" will never be "organic" again.
AnarchoBuddha: I advocate a 93% Anarchy as a transitionary society -- it is doable.
Spanish-Anarchists and Anarcho-Syndicalists advocate the zero personal property argument. Let's have a look.
Everyone says the upper 8% control 80% of all assets and capital. That's 16M people. How about the upper 28% - control 95%, right? That's 46M people. How many unique and loyal friends, family, associates do they have -- 2 each? That's 92M plus 46M is 138 million people!!
I think your lame. I think your arguments are lame. And I don't think you have a clue. With that said, your statistical argument is a complete charade. Why the top 8%? That's not where the control is. It's in a category that is statistically hidden, a fraction of the top 1%, the richest 200 families, members of the social register. I'd suggest watching my video The Elite to learn more.
Mr. Garrett Hardin's argument of "tragedy" doesn't make sense. He restricts the choices to manage the commons- its either no rules or private control. However, if the people can get together to elect a manager why not use that same "management technique" for everything else? Are there problems with the commons, like too much cattle for the ground? Then make an assembly and reach a decision by majority. Private ownership or manager are not needed to solve the problem. False argument.
the only way to make a decentralized communal society to work on a very large scale is a massive brainwashing campaign people are naturally greedy and want to get as much as possible.
The idea that eroding of communal land went hand-in-hand with the rise of capitalism is a great example of correlation not proving causation. The rise of capitalism also paralleled a tremendous rise in population. Previous communal/tribal practices could no longer sustain the number of people. Completely ignoring the population and population density part of the argument is disingenuous as both are VERY important to the concept. This shows how Anarchism is an impossible Utopian philosophy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is inane. The purpose of this video is obviously to cause more division than understanding.
You're a prostylatizing demogauge. You define words however they suit your purposes. Apparently "Laissez-faire" means "pollution". Nothing you said here is contradictory to the "free market" ideology, and your demonization of it is based on an ignorant and narrow minded definition of it's terms.
I'll keep railing on these ridiculous vidoes so long as they keep coming up on my lists.
The end of this video demonstrates the fallicy of your argument. You said; "they can poison the air poison the streams" No Buddaghem they can't because they would be poisoning someone elses property! That other person who owns the property being poisoned has property rights as well! It is the other property owner's rights that the poisoner in infringing upon!
yes you are right, but you must understand, you are preaching to people that are just like you and I, those who have no 'means of production' understand the problems of this arguement, this discussion has been perfected by labour history, but the problem is that today the same people who thought like us have turned to the 'right' for example the New Labour party in britain, and we must try to understand why these arguments such as harding's are being accepted.
stratvic, you're saying we'd need a one world wide political power to fix up...am I hearing this right...litter?! We do have custodial services, it's just another job that needs doing. Oh, and, privatizing water will just clean the water that is sold, not the other stuff that leaks into the rest of the environment. It's more economic to install a filtration system than clean the whole kitten kaboodle. Thanks profit-drive!
dafatalgigabyte: You need to educate yourself on the alternatives before you come down on either side.
Custodial services need authority which is backed by government force. If resources cross national borders you need one authority accross the areas covered by the common to control it with enforcement.
The ownersip model for water is not based on just output but also the source. Water and air are less applicable to an ownership model because they migrate.
I won't answer after this. Custodial services are done by people who don't farm. Guess why they do what they do. I can't convey any sense into for the water/air deal so nevermind. I have little clue as to what you're trying to say for the crossing of national borders. I always thought nations did a little thing called diplomacy to work together. I dunno how to answer though, not knowing exactly what you're trying to say. I'm differentiating cleaning litter from "cleaning the water and air."
Air, water, polutants, and in some cases litter crosses boarders. e.g. flourocarbons, CO2, acid rain, Chernobyl, plastic in the oceans, ship and computer breaking in 3rd world countries.
UN, WTO, World Bank, and all international agreements diminish soverienty. Every time more government is seen as the answer to problems we will get more of it with broader scope and broader powers altimately ending in one world government.
Well the argument seems convoluted to me, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something. But the "people in the area" would have no say over some piece of property they weren't using or effected by. If there was a dispute it would be between the two groups, individuals who claimed ownership. It's not like you'd have a bunch of strangers vote on who gets the house, if that's what you meant.
If a community decides how to manage property through a popular vote or consensus, what factors of that decision process determines that that popular decision is a more competent decision than one made by an individual property owner, or the decisions of non owners using the property?
Does popularity determine whether a decision is the best decision?
Seems a Red Herring. I don't know of any full proof formula for making competent decisions or for making sure other people do so. The absence of this knowledge hasn't stopped humans from organizing, cooperating, and making democratic decisions together on a wide range of issues. Rulers are fallible. But their decisions harm people that never had a say in the debate. When democracy is direct and at the lowest levels the possibility for that is diminished.
We agree all decisions made by people are fallible and that people should not be subjected to the decisions of others against there will. However political decisions are imposed onto others. No matter how popular or how local they are, they are an imposition of a decision onto others. Because those decisions have no more chance of being right than any other means (and I would argue democratic decisions have less chance of being right) popular decisions should also not be imposed onto others.
Well it seems you're making the case for inaction in all cases, an extreme for of skepticism that has no bearing on reality. The fact that people are fallible doesn't lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't struggle together to make decisions. As far as "imposing" any decision I'm talking about would be made with the consent of those deciding. You seem to have a very warped view of humanity.
I make a case for individualism in preference to people assuming power over and making decisions for others. Decisions will be flawed and the least we can do is ensure that those who are affected are those who make the decisions and that those who disagree are not. That principle excludes democracy and political power but it does not exclude voluntary cooperation, assistance, and association and is hardly a skeptical position.
My guess is nothing would ever get done in your society because "humans are fallible" which is just an absurd position. Maybe cynical was a better term.
Are you saying that the only way things get done is if some people decide for others what they should do and that they have to bear the cost of the decision mistakes of others?
Why don't we all just make our own decisions and learn from our own mistakes, mistakes that we will be very motivated to avoid?
That is not cynical it is generous, surely thinking people can't make their own decisions is the cynical position.
What I'm saying is that unless you want to live in some primitive society people need to come together and make decisions together. How should your communities water resources be allocated? Do you want one person making that decision? Or do you think it should be made by consensus of the community?
You fail to eliminate the tragedy of the commons through community. Even if the community you form owns all of that property (i.e. all the water, land, etc.) the tragedy of the commons will still exist within that society. The only way that that can be avoided is with political power backed by force on the communities members.
Like Hardin, I'd suggest you look back at history. Step outside your world of abstractions and look into how actual real-life commons were organized and self-regulated. You seem to have a problem with reality. I'd suggest you check it out.
Even if you advocate society ownership of the commons transferring them into a form of State ownership, maintain the problem of other states claiming other parts of that resource which in effect puts you back to either tragedy of the commons between States or into an ownership society except that the owners are States (collections of individuals) rather than the individuals ownership of a free society effectively sharing the same attributes other than individual freedom.
Seriously, I don't think that the tragedy of the commons is a good argument. Some how this doesn't apply to the state, like the state doesn't use up resources or ignore the "tragedy" that's happening.
I believe it's admitted that if a "common" was to start using up all the resources they wouldn't be stupid enough to ignore the coming disaster and not see it coming. Seriously, I know humans aren't perfect, but we're not parasites.
Community ownership requires political power and force to ensure the survival of the commons under the pressures of competition of use and therefore to use the resources before others do. (nb. competitors for use might be competing communities with no ability to control).
Contrast an ownership society where that property is managed for the long term benefit of the owner which is much better aligned with the survival of the resource and optimizing use which benefits the entire community.
Competition of use? I'm going to die laughing. Take a look at what real commons were like. And by the way, I don't think the rain forests are currently being used as you say they would with private ownership. Please. Commoners have common sense when using the commons.
The argument isn't that commoners lack common sense, it's that the 'common interest' principle isn't enough incentive for common people to rally together to care for something. There is no shortage of examples where this is true. Private property rights ensure that people have a vested interest in the value of the property. If they don't care for it, they will have wasted that property and will go broke. Further, this prevents obstruction of property rights by defining proper ownership.
It hasn't been of much incentive for corporations to clean the water that they messed up. If you say that people don't want to take care of things, then I sure as hell don't want to pick one person out of the bunch to take charge of a resource. Just as when people say that humans are so awful, then I don't want to pick a human to lead me.
If the resources are broke, the commoners go broke so that argument is totally false. Do you possibly mean the garbage issue you said before?
Why WOULD there be an incentive for corporations when they can just dump their waste into publicly owned water? You can be damn sure if they owned the water themselves they would think twice about doing it.
I'm also very skeptical of the "all humans are awful" observation. I believe people are capable of doing very horrible things if placed in the type of environment or system conducive to them. The system we have now is such.
It hasn't been of much incentive for corporations to clean the water that they messed up. If you say that people don't want to take care of things, then I sure as hell don't want to pick one person out of the bunch to take charge of a resource. Just as when people say that humans are so awful, then I don't want to pick a human to lead me.
If the resources are broke, the commoners go broke so that argument is totally false. Do you possibly mean the garbage issue you said before?
Commoners may go broke, but their share of the pie is so miniscule as to render the outcome insignificant. Besides, they have no control over it. The government does. Your "ownership" consists of handing over your tax dollars to the almighty government. Not only that, but the natural reaction with commonly owned property is to expect somebody else to deal with the problem since your share is so small. What results is neglect, waste, and ultimately crisis.
Commoners may go broke, but their share of the pie is so miniscule as to render the outcome insignificant. Besides, they have no control over it. The government does. Your "ownership" consists of handing over your tax dollars to the almighty government. Not only that, but the natural reaction with commonly owned property is to expect somebody else to deal with the problem since your share is so small. What results is neglect, waste, and ultimately crisis.
Where have I mentioned the government controlling the commons? Here I am speaking of looking at real live examples and you first tell me there are those where they didn't work for some unreal reason, and then you go on and say that I speak of partial or even full state capitalism, where the state owns the resource in question. Both miss the point.
You can be damn sure if people owned the water and industry themselves, they would think twice before dumping.
"You can be damn sure if people owned the water and industry themselves, they would think twice before dumping."
Dude, that's what I just said!
"Where have I mentioned the government controlling the commons?"
You didn't mention it, I did. The system we have now IS an example of tragedy of the commons, i.e. government representing the people (in theory) who collectively own property.
You ignore the nature of man in your understanding of a commune. The commune experiment has been run many times with disasterous results. What could it take to get you to give up such a failure ensuring philosophy if not the lives of millions of your elk?
But the argument about the "tragedy of the commons" is that, individually, there is not enough incentive to care for a common good if your share is so trivial. Would vandalism and graffiti be so prevalent in a privatized society? Collectively owned property isn't cared for enough to preserve.
I would also add that using up resources and creating disasters may not be the intent, but it is certainly the end result. Parasitical or not, it's inefficient, neglectful, and wasteful.
The incentive is created by an awareness. This collectively owned land would probably taken care of because the people that own it wouldn't want to ruin it, after all they live on it.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." They wouldn't want the land to be ruined on purpose, but the incentives are such that their stake in it is not enough to care for it. Does anyone on earth wilfully wish its destruction? Of course not, but this vague communal interest is not enough motivation. Would a logging company re-plant where they clear cut if they just leased the land for 4 weeks?
Well, it's almost like the same argument as people wouldn't be peaceful without a state because they have no incentive to. It's kind of like Ayn Rand's "rational selfishness vs. irrational selfishness".
But there IS an incentive to be peaceful in the absence of the state. In fact, there are several incentives. It's the same reason why people litter. They don't do it to ruin the environment. But they rationalize that it's just one little piece of garbage that probably SOMEONE ELSE will eventually pick up. Well, eventually an accumulation of innocent enough litterers becomes a problem. Rational selfishness and irrational selfishness would lead to the same outcome with private property rights.
I think that the "tragedy of the commons" is easily applied to any societal structure. It's no more or less relevant to communally owned land than it is to privately owned land. I don't think it's a good argument against communally owned land. I mean, what incentive wouldn't they have. It's not like your family doesn't clean their house.
Communally owned land is precisely the kind of example where it IS a good argument to apply -- because it's COMMMONLY owned. A commonly owned house is another good example. There is an expectation that someone else with clean the dishes, or vacuum the floor, or take out the garbage. Now, could a private person let their house become a dump? Yes, but let the demise of their house be their punishment in that case. They are only decreasing its value by doing so.
If you haven't noticed it is private companies that are leading in the way in destroying the environment and they do exactly because they assume someone else will clean it up. In your fancy capitalist jargon it's called an externality. I'd suggest you look into real examples of communally owned resources in history. It's something Hardin and you seem to be ignorant of.
You're making my point. I don't deny it is private companies damaging the environment. I agree they externalize costs. What I'm saying is the reason they can get away with it is because there is no definition or respect for private property rights. Where is a private company going to dump their waste? In communally owned lakes or land. Why? Because the repercussions are minimal and no one looks after it. If the property was privatized, you mitigate this kind of behavior.
This is true, however I'm just making the point that the tragedy of the commons doesn't really happen if the people actually are "rationally selfish" rather than "irrationally selfish".
The problem is the state giving companies the opportunity to chop down a forest, sell everything, and the CEOs retire. If people didn't rely on the state to decide what happens to the property that belongs to them, then I'm not sure there would be much of a problem.
We're certainly in agreement then. My argument is that it's the government to blame for the mess, not some notion of evil capitalist externalization. They externalize because they can and there is no incentive for them to do otherwise.
That's not an excuse. It's the government's job to protect people's rights. If capitalists are violating people's property rights, it's the government who should be stopping them. If I knocked on your door and said, "I'm here to murder your wife," would you say "Come on in, Mr. Murderer. Door is on the left." No, you're supposed to stop me.
No, it's a perfectly acceptable excuse. The excuse you give for the capitalists is "human action" in which they try to maximize profits. Well... We can give the government the same excuse. They're essentially the same entity once they collude.
Maybe I should clarify. I'm not excusing malfeasance of capitalists when they engage in it. They are surely culpable. What I'm saying is this behavior wouldn't happen were it not for gov't corruption or ineptitude. If they are violating rights, what is the outcome? Instead of punishment, they are protected, allowed to bribe, given a slap on the wrist, or in some cases, rewarded for their behavior. Doesn't happen in a free market.
Of course, I agree with most of this. However, the opposite could be argued as well. Like, if there were no capitalists the government wouldn't be corrupt, or something to that effect. It's not really the stance I take though.
My point is that the "evil capitalist" is tamed in a free market purely out of self-interest to stay in business or the risk to himself for violating other people's private property rights, which would be paramount. In the system we have now, there is far less incentive to exhibit good behavior in the marketplace other than the superficial purposes of PR. So, sure, you can't dismiss bad behavior, but get the gov't out of the way and problem solved. There are also recourses w/o government too.
The problem you have is that the tragedy of the commons relies on "rationally selfish" individuals to ensure the demise of the commons. The only escape is through either one world wide political power exercising force to defeat individual action or private ownership of resources which retains individual action. It is a simple choice with wide ranging implications.
stratvic, you're saying we'd need a one world wide political power to fix up...am I hearing this right...litter?! We do have custodial services, it's just another job that needs doing. Oh, and, privatizing water will just clean the water that is sold, not the other stuff that leaks into the rest of the environment. It's more economic to install a filtration system than clean the whole kitten kaboodle. Thanks profit-drive!
Well, if you own a lake for example, what incentive do you have to clean only water you are selling and pollute the rest? That doesn't make any sense. Plus, what if you are using the water for recreational purposes? Wouldn't your incentive be to keep the entire body of water clean? If people are so concerned about the water, why wouldn't an environmental group pool resources and buy it up? The problem isn't profit drive per se, but profit drive allowed to go astray and collude with government.
"ne world wide political power exercising force to defeat individual action or private ownership of resources"
Kind of a false dichotomy, what about mutually-assured arrangements, which is what buddhagem was talking about. Essentially, his point was that the communal interest in preservation isn't all that different from private interest except communal interests is directly affected by all the decisions, so it's the same in all ways except for where it does a better job.
So the tragedy of the commons is shifted from individuals competing to exploit the commons, to communities racing to exploit the commons, and within those communities another race between individuals to exploit the resources of the community. You are just shifting the scope and focus and not tackling the problem.
If your property is basically the "stuff" you actively use, I don't see how that could be abused. You can only use so much stuff. It would be kinda hard to convince anybody that you're actively using ten homes or twenty cars etc. In such a society the need for a "vacation home" that stays empty 9 or 10 months out of the year would be absurd. But any disputes would be dealt with at a local level by those involved. There are plenty of good conflict resolution procedures that could be used.
This has been flagged as spam show
...thought onto the commoners, and assuming they would respond in a fashion similar to their own.
kropotkinbeard1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VERY good video. The notion of the "tragedy of the commons" is and always has been a myth, and an easily demonstrable myth. You have done a fine job of explaining the dynamics of the issue. Perhaps the most interesting aspect to me is what basically amounts to a psychological projection on the part of the believers of the myth in which presents itself when they try and argue what they mistakenly 'think' would occur in the commons by applying the very greed which is built into their system of...
kropotkinbeard1 1 week ago
Private property is not a tragedy, absentee land ownership is.
DesecrateConformity 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
onepiecefan74 2 months ago
Hey buddy! I read some time ago "The tragedy of the commons" by Hardin and I got some crazy idea today, that private property (usually presented as solution) should also suffer from the tragedy of the commons as described by Hardin. Do you know any reference which makes such argument?
BestAcousticCover 3 months ago
I believe in the tradegy of the commons is the best proof why anarcho-capitalism can not work.
professornuclearbomb 5 months ago
@buddhagem Your notion of private property does not seem to include the right to ones own body. In a true capitalist/libertarian society if a person infringes on the person of another through pollution or anything else they would be subject to sanction. You seem to be arguing against state crony capitalism ie. Fascism.
Unfortunately the U.S. and other countries gave up on this notion of personal responsibility withing a private property society in the very early 1900's to encourage state power
lagreider 1 year ago
@lagreider You don't own yourself. "Ownership" implies something is possessed. You are yourself. Plus I don't see how "self ownership" implies being able to own everything you can "homestead".
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@lagreider That's always the cop-out used by capitalist libertarians. They say that the markets should be completely liberated so there is no interference by the state, yet they also claim there should be strong property rights. But when presented with reality in the form of the tragedy of commons exploitation, they make claims that "they would be subject to sanction." So Ron Paul wants to end the EPA, but when an entity pollutes a river that entity is sanctioned ... somehow.
glocksout 5 hours ago
Even though capitalism obviously has a lot of problems, I feel like communal control of everything could be oppressive in it's own right. I think I'd personally like more of a middle ground, something like mutualism. But few people seem to be for that
dubified89 1 year ago
@dubified89 Mutualism would be 1000x better than capitalism. But I think you're definition of "communal ownership" is a bit strawman-ish. Mutualism also has collective ownership i.e. worker cooperatives.
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@buddhagem Exactly. Hardin's orginal article was completely unempirical
and not in any way based upon the history of the actual regulated
commons. Or any potential commonsCheck out the article "Myth of the Tragedy of
the Commons" online by ian angus.
btw prior to this article, Hardin was most known for being "the author
of a biology textbook that argued for "control of breeding" of
"genetically defective" people (Hardin 1966: 707).
slainemacroth 1 year ago
I can shred your entire argument by dissecting one two-word phrase you used - "grossly irrational". Rationality is a characteristic of individuals, and individuals only. You imply that the actions of individuals, taken in the aggregate can add up to being "grossly irrational" - irrational by whose standards - yours? Who is the divine, omniscient intellect that gets to declare the collective actions of rational beings null and void? When you eat a piece of bread, do you consider it your property?
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer The tragedy of the commons shows that rational individuals making rational decisions leads to an irrational outcome for the group. I don't see how you don't understand this concept.
If a forest has enough trees to make 9 homes, and there are ten families in that forest, these rational individuals will destroy the forest and everyone will not have enough wood to complete their home. Bellum omnium contra omnes
glocksout 5 hours ago
this is an excellent video.
fon12377 1 year ago
Very true. The best form of governance in the world is self governance by a culture of respect for one another's share of the commonly owned resource. The solution is not to elect a central planner or make resources privately owned. The solution is to practice only two industries essential to our survival - agriculture and education, as well as to control the population according to the amount of resources we have.
kclau1 1 year ago
Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! My only criticism/remark is why aren't those of us who see/understand this; why aren't we living on a large, rural mostly self-sufficient communes? Intellectual rationalization/argument only go so far. I think the most significant/important thing we can/could/should do is to demonstrate to the world how well this would work.
TheCommunalSolution 1 year ago
Okay, so here's a hypothetical. Let's say that you are the greedy owner of a logging company, and your company owns a massive expanse of forested land. In this situation, you are the stereotypical capitalist, complete with thin sinister mustache and interested only in maximum profit for yourself. What are you going to do with this land? Are you going to obliterate it and make money today and then never after, or are you going to keep the environment (and your income) sustainable?
JETZcorp 1 year ago
@JETZcorp That's what some find as a solution to the commons problem. Except that when all land is owned, it excludes ownership of land from successive generations. That also fails to recognize that the tragedy of the commons isn't just about land management, but about all exploitation, be it economical, social, et al. What we see in industrialized countries today is the capitalists have exploited the labor market so well they're now losing profits because they've killed off demand.
glocksout 5 hours ago
Nyc... are you an economist? or just a socioeconomic enthusiast?
Nades129 1 year ago
If historical experience could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization. With the successive progress of a general tendency toward the abolition of institutions hindering the operation of the market economy, population figures multiplied and the masses' standard of living was raised to an unprecedented and hitherto undreamed of level. You seem to be using the word "capitalism" to describe state capitalism, not free-market capitalism.
stephenfdavis 1 year ago
@stephenfdavis You seem to be ignoring the fact that the transition from feudalism to capitalism was joined by massive expansion of private property, and along with it came protection rackets using the same rational self-interest which causes the tragedy of the commons. Examples: 19th Century Sicily (mafia) and Japan (yakuza), and post-Soviet Russia (mob).
glocksout 5 hours ago
10:57 , or option3, instead of giving control of the land to one person, all the herdsmen get together and democratically manage the land (It used to happen all the time).
aSheeple 1 year ago
I never really understood why "the tragedy of the commons" is so tragic. The first time I heard it, I literally said "why don't they just turn the land into a commune?"
LeftPolitiko 1 year ago
I've found some of your videos to be informative, but you come across as hostile to libertarians and anarcho-capitalists who may not realize they're acting as vulgar libertarian puppets. They may see the title of the video and think "Angry leftist rant."
Even your argument in the video requires elaboration. Most arguments against common property are against state property or state exclusion from ownership of certain property. Argibusiness couldn't pump their runoff into the Mississippi..
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
..if the waterways were owned by fishermen or shrimpers or some other managed commons. But the US gov't prevents any kind of ownership and allows corporations to pollute in lakes and rivers.
Rambling but my point is you're isolating unwitting vulgar libertarians by attacking private property instead of offering commons as an alternative. Educate them rather. I know libertarian socialists have different views on property but furthering the schism btw anarchists will hurt the cause.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
You needed to elaborate why private property is not the best solution in certain circumstances,
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
You say "common property," but your premise is that "property is theft." By common property, you must mean that everyone in the world has an equal share in the whole earth. Anything less is exploitation. Did you get the permission of all to take these local resources?
You say "local control," but that would mean the local group is monopolizing the land and resources. They are excluding everyone else necessarily.
This sounds like evil capitalism. Your local group is just a corporation!
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
disappointing. the argument just points fingers, and grounds itself on assumptions, while hardin grounds his arguments on the 'worst case scenario'.
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
Your ignorance of contemporary economics is appalling. Perhaps this is news to you but the woman awarded the Nobel Prize in economics this year was awarded it based on work, empirical scientific work, that puts to rest Hardin's ridiculous notion that commons can't work. Unlike Hardin, though, she actually uses empirical evidence rather than just make up a story about an imaginary commons. Google Elinor Ostrom. Educate yourself before saying such stupid things.
buddhagem 2 years ago 5
again with the pointing of fingers. stop, honestly.
"It applies to situations where there is so much distrust, and communication is so costly, and people see so little benefit to solving environmental problems that they are, effectively, trapped." - ostrom.
I never said that solving the tragedy of commons is not possible without private property. Government (non-state), social stigma or analogous methods can be used. The POINT here is that the BEST answer to the WORSTcase scenario is property
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
love the intothewild soundtrack btw...
... just thinking, no matter how uneducated i am, dont you still need to treat people with respect? i mean, come on, what is all this BS that you have typed? I know you are better than that.
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
@buddhagem much appreciated for mentioning this person i am at the moment writing an essay on the commons this has helped me cheers
shakeyourdimsims 1 year ago
@buddhagem I can't thank you enough Buddhaghem,
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 1 year ago
Are you saying landowners don't have an incentive to keep up their own land? What about resale value? If I chop down all the trees, the land is worth MUCH less and the new buyer will understand the harmonization process lowers the overall value of the land. Are you saying that resale values remain the same and that this natural occurrence is a mind game although I can see it? government's centralize every time, a truly democratic state is a fallacy. private property=the most liberty possible
mikeshanklin 2 years ago
@mikeshanklin If the market forces at the time mean that the most profitable thing the owner can do is to chop down these trees they will chop down the trees and not think a single sad thought on their way to the bank. The only thing capitalists do is whatever they believe at the time to be in their best interest and all too often they believe that means fucking over the rest of us and the planet.
Plenty of dumb animals shit where they eat - capitalists are no exception.
waddletron 2 years ago
oh really? is it worth less? What about the expansion of the cities and the construction of malls and fields for agriculture or industry?
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Ah I totally agree, I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is that the very same people who are destroying the world would postulate the "tragedy of the commons" and impute it on their critics...
DonVoghano 2 years ago
The first time i read about the tragedy of the commons i actually understood it to be a criticism of lessez-faire capitalism or Randian type rants. It just fits like a glove.
Only idiotic economists with their Lego version of people could possibly apply it to anarcho-socialist types of societies.
DonVoghano 2 years ago
angry liberal?
KhanSlayer 2 years ago
A people averse to the institution of private property is a people without the first element of freedom.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
There should be a rational synthesis of anarchism and communism. Certain institutional structures are needed, and certain commonly operated protective and restrictive functions, but freedoms should be maximized economically and socially.
TheNomadicMonad 2 years ago
More appropriately, The Tragedy of the Free for All.
This is certainly not an indictment of proper commons, as you have so eloquently shown, but I must disagree with you regarding private property, the supposed indictment of which is both unfounded and completely preposterous.
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago
We are not animals, there is the Bio-sphere and the noos-sphere, our conscious awareness and ability to use our minds is the diff, we can choose to cooperate with each other, some of us any way. the tragedy in the commons is that some are stealing the resources of others all over the planet or waging was to control and dominate.
ngonea 2 years ago
buddhagem: the private property under Statism is very different than the private property under Anarchism. In Statism you can purchase as many land you can under the protection of the state, in anarchy there's no state therefore you can only truly own as much land as you can control. Private property is not a tragedy.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
the KEY word here: agreement.
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
from 5:10... "unlike common or personal property, capitalist property is not valued for itself or its utility it is valued for the revenue it produces for its owner..."
Do you support this statement as true? (question directed towards buddhagem)
If someone likes a plot of land, purposes may include seclusion, scenery, abundance of fruit trees etc etc, is your position that these things can't be valued by the owner, if he won't use them for monetary gain? or does Rev include non-monetary gain?
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
Why is it assumed the interests of a group are any more sustainable or rational than the interests of an individual?
rbairos1 2 years ago
It's not assumed; it's been demonstrated throughout history.
buddhagem 2 years ago
Pre WW2 Germany, the Soviet Union, the Camere Rouge, the Klan, Imperialist Japan, Al Queda etc and several societies in the middle east. Very large groups with very large scale destructive tendencies that required the collective cooperation of many. Ideas supported by a collective are intrinsically no different than ideas supported by an individual, except that the individuals voice is lost in the former. I think your support from history claim is highly selective.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Very large groups? Or very small groups with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and violence over a given area? None of your examples are examples of large groups, at least in comparison to the population. It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about and you're unfamiliar with the real history of commons. I'd suggest you do a little research. Good luck.
buddhagem 2 years ago 7
Comment removed
rbairos1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pre WW2 Germany, the Soviet Union, Imperialist Japan, several societies in the middle east *all* boast/boasted an extremely large popular support base. Secondly the use of force or violence is no safer in the hands of a group than in the hands of individuals as Im showing.
Its pretty clear you arent addressing my points. "Good luck"
rbairos1 2 years ago
Socialist anarchism is a nineteenth century aberration.
Spooner, Rothbard, Friedman and Nozick showed us the way ahead.
Viva anarcho-capitalism!
VanDoodah 2 years ago
It's even an aberration by 19th century standards, Van.
Proudhon was horrified by the anti-propertariansism generated by those who misread "What is Property?" and so wrote "Theory of Property" in which he ENDORSES private property and calls private property the greatest revolutionary force known to man and the only insurer of individual liberty.
Benjamin Tucker then echoed this sentiment, among others. Tucker actually stated that any who reject private property cannot be anarchists.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
I'm not overly familiar with Proudhon's theory of property. As I understand it, however, he argued for a modified form of private property that excluded absentee landlordism. Tucker's economics views were based around a labour theory of value and, by extension, a labour theory of property.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Proudhon's "Theory of Property" is a reluctant endorsement of all private (non-state provided) property. In it, Proudhon retains some of his aesthetic utopianism, but makes the pragmatic case for absolute private property, for absolute individual sovereignty.
Tucker based some of his earlier writings on the labor theory of value, but never prioritized them.. and rejected them in later life.
In 1913, he wrote "Capitalism is at least tolerable; the same cannot be said of socialism or communism."
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
I hadn't heard that quote of Tucker's before. Cheers for the info.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
No worries. There's a lot like that from his late-life correspondence:
"Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property.
Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist."
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
Thanks for removing that ridiculous comment. If you have "large public support" you don't need to resort to strong-arm tactics. And I guess you realized that none of those dealt with the issue of the commons which is the whole point.
buddhagem 2 years ago 3
I didnt remove it. It appeared to be associated with the wrong comment, so I re-entered it. The reason I found your channel was because of an comment you left on confederalsocialist's channel. But browsing through your other vids its becoming apparent your only M.O is to quickly dismis dissenting opinions with brash insults of superior intellect. PS the 'strong arm tacticts' were absent during the formative years of many of the groups I mentioned and only directed towards outside groups.
rbairos1 2 years ago 2
LOOK, we just need a fair law which states land covered by forest is owned by no one (by the government but which doesnt do anything with it). and second, nobody owns the fish in the lake. and rivers should just be kept un polluted and thats it.
Danotto9797 2 years ago
Comment removed
Danotto9797 2 years ago
why do 'libertarian' capitalists consider all anti-capitalist theories "big -government" in their essence? Please! Familiarize yourself with genuine leftist economic theory and not attempt to pigeon hole all types of socialistic economics with the Soviet Union. The majority of the historical left would've never agreed with Leninist and Stalinist policies. Besides, both men bastardized Marx's writings to attempt to fit their own needs in Russia. Furthermore, Marx was not the first socialist!
honestkaos 2 years ago
LOL! I love the title.
overmind25 2 years ago
I am sorry governments abuse resources the most because they need the capital to make up for lacking of productivity in other areas.
Ie Mexico oil industry. Government run and they caused the collapse of their oil industries production because it was a cash cow for state. No reinvestment or care for reservoir engineering.
EasyEs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Buddhagem advocates utopianism and therefore has no connection to the real world.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
The tragedy of the commons arises not from property rights, but from inadequate property rights.
For example, chickens & cows are not in danger of extinction. Some varieties of whales & elephants may be engangered just because there are no well-defined property rights to whales or (in most countries) to African elephants.
Buddhagem needs to read some Hayek. Or at least an introductory text on economics. Try Gwartney's.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
I totally agree. He doesn't understand anything about how large organisations operate. Any economist - studier of human action - would cringe at the thought of what he suggests.
Economics is just an inconvenience to Leftists who just want to impose themselves on the rest of the world and rob them of their primary means of interaction.
podrag 2 years ago
Buddhism has nothing to do with Leftism.
The teachings on the first Paramita of Mahayan Buddhism teaches that generosity with the property of others is not generosity. Violently enforced wealth redistribution is not generosity. What he teaches is not Buddhism or anacharism, it is just another a form of dictatorship of the proletariat.
podrag 3 years ago
That's funny. It was the Buddha who smashed the Caste system, through the idea of karma on its head, and opened up the Sangha to women. Sounds like a leftist to me. As far as your Paramitas are concerned, you can keep them. I'm a Theravadin Buddhist and while I admire much of Mahayana Buddhism I think it falls far from the mark when it comes to accurately following and implementing the teachings of the Buddha. You keep on worshipping property. I'll fight for social justice. Peace.
buddhagem 3 years ago
It's not about worshiping property, it is about respecting property. Do any Buddhist monks subvert the law to make it illegal not to give them food? No, they ASK for it. They respect the property of others - whether it is Theravadin, Mahayana or Vajrayana.
And, again, it is very arrogant to claim the disregard of the caste system and the equal treatment of women only for the left - but I am used to this now. Yawn.
podrag 3 years ago
I don't know, the Dalai Lama's on record as having called himself "half-Marxist."
Sounds pretty half-Marxist to me.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago
We've gone over this already. The Dalai Lama admits that he doesn't understand much about politics or economics.
He is a politician not a political-economics theorist. He says he's Marxist to win over the people of China. If, like me, you sit down and compare Marxism t Rothbardian Anarchism or Minarchism Buddhism adheres much more closely with the latter.
podrag 2 years ago
Well, go over it again.
The Dalai Lama is a politician? With no country?
And he's claiming to be half-Marxist to win over the Chinese, because the Chinese are oh-so-willing to give up Tibet to a left-wing monk! Not a right-wing one...
Because the Chinese impose an idoelogical litmus test on any takers.
I happen to know a fine bridge in Brooklyn I can sell.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago
Yes: he is the leader of the Tibetan government in exile.
The answer to your second point is also yes.
The answer to your third third point is also yes.
I don't understand the third. I think you are trying to be a smart ass but it isn't really working for you.
If you think Buddhism is left-wing then find anything Buddhist that says you should use the coercive force of the state to redistribute wealth. There's nothing that says that.
podrag 2 years ago
Thank you for basically saying that the Dalai Lama is lying.
"If you think Buddhism is left-wing then find anything Buddhist that says you should use the coercive force of the state to redistribute wealth. There's nothing that says that."
Right - because the Dalai Lama didn't tax anyone before 1950...
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago
Yeah and in Tibet there were Lamas who claimed they could fly and walk through walls. Is that Buddhism? No, it isn't. Do leaving offerings to river spirits and trees have anything to do with Buddhism? No. Does taxation have anything to do with Buddhism? No.
Just name one piece of Buddhist literature that advocates taxation. Just ONE. There aren't any because 'generosity with the possessions of others is not generosity' as stated in Je Gampopa's 'Jewelled Ornament of Liberation'.
podrag 2 years ago
Cool. I'm very sympathetic to Buddhism - and I think the Dalai Lama's a hypocrite as well.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago
That said, capitalism is a system of exploitation, regardless of what China or the Dalai Lama think about it.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago
No, private property is a system whereby individuals get to express their needs by buying goods from those who best meet them. All exchange is free and non-coerced. It is by very nature not exploitative because property is obtained by offering a service or a good to someone at a price both parties are freely willing to accept.
When violence is involved it becomes another matter entirely.There is nothing wrong with voluntarily living in a communal society either. Coercion is the problem.
podrag 2 years ago
Please educate yourself. Using something other than free-market ideology.
inbrooklyn2008 2 years ago
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Please *don't* educate yourself. You're not up to the job. Get someone to teach you about economics, someone with real training in economics, not big-government ideology.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago
Ignorant & untrue.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago
Comment removed
podrag 2 years ago
Buddhists respect property that people need. If you have wealth, you probably have a lot of property you don't need.
mempko 2 years ago
Buddhagem: Voluntary Tribalism requires heavy in-culturation (a mono-culture), religion/mysticism, and warfare. The British settlers were just another tribe with different cultural values -- they were under the King or under Democracy they never saw the light of capitalism (in the "truly" free-market sense), which is better worded as Market-Anarchism or Individual-Anarchism (the latter being redundant). By definition Anarchism is Individualism.
There are no atheists in tribal society.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
Buddhagem: You are comparing "tragedy of constitutional-monarchy," or "tragedy of constitutional-democracy" with the "tragedy of the commons." Not with "tragedy of truly free-market private property."
U.S History has only been constitutional-monarchy or constitutional-democracy (Involuntary).
An-Archims means No-Rule or Voluntary Self-Rule. A "free-society" does not allow for abdication by the healthy and capable.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
I'd suggest you watch the video again. Apparently you missed something because your comments seem very confused. You can go pray to Rothbard or Austrian Economics all you want but try not to pretend it's rational or that it has anything to do with the long current of anarchist struggle against capitalism. This may not be the capitalism you dream about; but it is the capitalism that real capitalists want. If you didn't know, they happen to run the country. No please run along.
Anarchobuddha 3 years ago
Anarcho-Buddha: Your username and comment seem to be off. I didn't make any "slights" in my comment, but you did, hmmm.
Communists and Anarchists never claim (as representative) any country that tried to implement their philosophy -- Because every implementation has been In-Voluntary and because of the many sell outs and profiteers.
The same is true for Capitalism -- There is not a "type" of Capitalism; it's a word that has been hijacked - Like: natural or organic or christian.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
Well I'd guess you've never met any Anarchists then because we offer a wide range of examples of our philosophy; perhaps the best and largest scale example being Spain 1936 to 1939, but there are plenty of other smaller examples from around the world. As for the communists, I'll let them defend themselves. Capitalism may have been hijacked but it's a simple economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. Simple. You? You're just silly.
Anarchobuddha 3 years ago
Anarchobuddha: I was an Anarcho-Syndicalist 15 to 20 years ago -- I've always be an "anarchist" -- at least by 93%, smile.
Spain was not ideal from '36 to '39 -- lots of sell-outs and of course it failed. It was not "voluntary" -- it was one group forcing another.
I'm not against "force" but if the "foce" is counter to how the society functions or how the society dreams/thinks then it will always be violent and fringe. Spain was Anarcho-Syndicalist (by-the-by).
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
Nobody cares what you were or think you are. And what on earth would be a 93% Anarchist? You only want to be 93% free? If you understood the concept I think you might understand what a silly thing that is. Have a good night. Be a whatever you want to be. But please go try and fool somebody else that you know what you're talking about. Try a Kindergarden class. That might work. They are pretty easy to trick at that age.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Anarchobuddha: (I like that name). Capitalism was never "highjacked" it never existed -- it never made it into fruition. What we have is Democracy -- like Socialism and Communism it is a Central Banking Union (fiat credit and fiat money) -- it is entirely InVoluntary.
I don't like the word and try to avoid it whenever debating. It can never be reclaimed -- just like "natural" will never be "organic" again.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
AnarchoBuddha: I advocate a 93% Anarchy as a transitionary society -- it is doable.
Spanish-Anarchists and Anarcho-Syndicalists advocate the zero personal property argument. Let's have a look.
Everyone says the upper 8% control 80% of all assets and capital. That's 16M people. How about the upper 28% - control 95%, right? That's 46M people. How many unique and loyal friends, family, associates do they have -- 2 each? That's 92M plus 46M is 138 million people!!
You plan to overthrow?
GoGoOcto 3 years ago
I think your lame. I think your arguments are lame. And I don't think you have a clue. With that said, your statistical argument is a complete charade. Why the top 8%? That's not where the control is. It's in a category that is statistically hidden, a fraction of the top 1%, the richest 200 families, members of the social register. I'd suggest watching my video The Elite to learn more.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Mr. Garrett Hardin's argument of "tragedy" doesn't make sense. He restricts the choices to manage the commons- its either no rules or private control. However, if the people can get together to elect a manager why not use that same "management technique" for everything else? Are there problems with the commons, like too much cattle for the ground? Then make an assembly and reach a decision by majority. Private ownership or manager are not needed to solve the problem. False argument.
pokeralho2008 3 years ago 11
the only way to make a decentralized communal society to work on a very large scale is a massive brainwashing campaign people are naturally greedy and want to get as much as possible.
giren0079 3 years ago
brainwashing or enlightenment?
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
maybe a little of both
giren0079 3 years ago
The idea that eroding of communal land went hand-in-hand with the rise of capitalism is a great example of correlation not proving causation. The rise of capitalism also paralleled a tremendous rise in population. Previous communal/tribal practices could no longer sustain the number of people. Completely ignoring the population and population density part of the argument is disingenuous as both are VERY important to the concept. This shows how Anarchism is an impossible Utopian philosophy.
sorienor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is inane. The purpose of this video is obviously to cause more division than understanding.
You're a prostylatizing demogauge. You define words however they suit your purposes. Apparently "Laissez-faire" means "pollution". Nothing you said here is contradictory to the "free market" ideology, and your demonization of it is based on an ignorant and narrow minded definition of it's terms.
I'll keep railing on these ridiculous vidoes so long as they keep coming up on my lists.
Darganot 3 years ago
The end of this video demonstrates the fallicy of your argument. You said; "they can poison the air poison the streams" No Buddaghem they can't because they would be poisoning someone elses property! That other person who owns the property being poisoned has property rights as well! It is the other property owner's rights that the poisoner in infringing upon!
TokJokWTB 3 years ago
yes you are right, but you must understand, you are preaching to people that are just like you and I, those who have no 'means of production' understand the problems of this arguement, this discussion has been perfected by labour history, but the problem is that today the same people who thought like us have turned to the 'right' for example the New Labour party in britain, and we must try to understand why these arguments such as harding's are being accepted.
mahyarmohaghegh 3 years ago
Keep it up buddhagem!!!! Good fucking video!!!
bootleg42 3 years ago
stratvic, you're saying we'd need a one world wide political power to fix up...am I hearing this right...litter?! We do have custodial services, it's just another job that needs doing. Oh, and, privatizing water will just clean the water that is sold, not the other stuff that leaks into the rest of the environment. It's more economic to install a filtration system than clean the whole kitten kaboodle. Thanks profit-drive!
dafatalgigabyte 3 years ago
dafatalgigabyte: You need to educate yourself on the alternatives before you come down on either side.
Custodial services need authority which is backed by government force. If resources cross national borders you need one authority accross the areas covered by the common to control it with enforcement.
The ownersip model for water is not based on just output but also the source. Water and air are less applicable to an ownership model because they migrate.
stratvic 3 years ago
I won't answer after this. Custodial services are done by people who don't farm. Guess why they do what they do. I can't convey any sense into for the water/air deal so nevermind. I have little clue as to what you're trying to say for the crossing of national borders. I always thought nations did a little thing called diplomacy to work together. I dunno how to answer though, not knowing exactly what you're trying to say. I'm differentiating cleaning litter from "cleaning the water and air."
dafatalgigabyte 3 years ago
Air, water, polutants, and in some cases litter crosses boarders. e.g. flourocarbons, CO2, acid rain, Chernobyl, plastic in the oceans, ship and computer breaking in 3rd world countries.
UN, WTO, World Bank, and all international agreements diminish soverienty. Every time more government is seen as the answer to problems we will get more of it with broader scope and broader powers altimately ending in one world government.
stratvic 3 years ago
Did you even watch the video? Nothing you have said gives me the impression you did.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Well the argument seems convoluted to me, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something. But the "people in the area" would have no say over some piece of property they weren't using or effected by. If there was a dispute it would be between the two groups, individuals who claimed ownership. It's not like you'd have a bunch of strangers vote on who gets the house, if that's what you meant.
buddhagem 3 years ago
How does popularity transform human decisions from incompetence to competence?
stratvic 3 years ago
Not sure I understand what you're asking. Could you elaborate?
buddhagem 3 years ago
If a community decides how to manage property through a popular vote or consensus, what factors of that decision process determines that that popular decision is a more competent decision than one made by an individual property owner, or the decisions of non owners using the property?
Does popularity determine whether a decision is the best decision?
stratvic 3 years ago
Seems a Red Herring. I don't know of any full proof formula for making competent decisions or for making sure other people do so. The absence of this knowledge hasn't stopped humans from organizing, cooperating, and making democratic decisions together on a wide range of issues. Rulers are fallible. But their decisions harm people that never had a say in the debate. When democracy is direct and at the lowest levels the possibility for that is diminished.
buddhagem 3 years ago
We agree all decisions made by people are fallible and that people should not be subjected to the decisions of others against there will. However political decisions are imposed onto others. No matter how popular or how local they are, they are an imposition of a decision onto others. Because those decisions have no more chance of being right than any other means (and I would argue democratic decisions have less chance of being right) popular decisions should also not be imposed onto others.
stratvic 3 years ago
Well it seems you're making the case for inaction in all cases, an extreme for of skepticism that has no bearing on reality. The fact that people are fallible doesn't lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't struggle together to make decisions. As far as "imposing" any decision I'm talking about would be made with the consent of those deciding. You seem to have a very warped view of humanity.
buddhagem 3 years ago
I make a case for individualism in preference to people assuming power over and making decisions for others. Decisions will be flawed and the least we can do is ensure that those who are affected are those who make the decisions and that those who disagree are not. That principle excludes democracy and political power but it does not exclude voluntary cooperation, assistance, and association and is hardly a skeptical position.
stratvic 3 years ago
My guess is nothing would ever get done in your society because "humans are fallible" which is just an absurd position. Maybe cynical was a better term.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Are you saying that the only way things get done is if some people decide for others what they should do and that they have to bear the cost of the decision mistakes of others?
Why don't we all just make our own decisions and learn from our own mistakes, mistakes that we will be very motivated to avoid?
That is not cynical it is generous, surely thinking people can't make their own decisions is the cynical position.
stratvic 3 years ago
What I'm saying is that unless you want to live in some primitive society people need to come together and make decisions together. How should your communities water resources be allocated? Do you want one person making that decision? Or do you think it should be made by consensus of the community?
buddhagem 3 years ago
You fail to eliminate the tragedy of the commons through community. Even if the community you form owns all of that property (i.e. all the water, land, etc.) the tragedy of the commons will still exist within that society. The only way that that can be avoided is with political power backed by force on the communities members.
stratvic 3 years ago 2
Like Hardin, I'd suggest you look back at history. Step outside your world of abstractions and look into how actual real-life commons were organized and self-regulated. You seem to have a problem with reality. I'd suggest you check it out.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Ad hominem!...ignore.
Even if you advocate society ownership of the commons transferring them into a form of State ownership, maintain the problem of other states claiming other parts of that resource which in effect puts you back to either tragedy of the commons between States or into an ownership society except that the owners are States (collections of individuals) rather than the individuals ownership of a free society effectively sharing the same attributes other than individual freedom.
stratvic 3 years ago 2
Seriously, I don't think that the tragedy of the commons is a good argument. Some how this doesn't apply to the state, like the state doesn't use up resources or ignore the "tragedy" that's happening.
I believe it's admitted that if a "common" was to start using up all the resources they wouldn't be stupid enough to ignore the coming disaster and not see it coming. Seriously, I know humans aren't perfect, but we're not parasites.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
Community ownership requires political power and force to ensure the survival of the commons under the pressures of competition of use and therefore to use the resources before others do. (nb. competitors for use might be competing communities with no ability to control).
Contrast an ownership society where that property is managed for the long term benefit of the owner which is much better aligned with the survival of the resource and optimizing use which benefits the entire community.
stratvic 3 years ago
Competition of use? I'm going to die laughing. Take a look at what real commons were like. And by the way, I don't think the rain forests are currently being used as you say they would with private ownership. Please. Commoners have common sense when using the commons.
dafatalgigabyte 3 years ago
The argument isn't that commoners lack common sense, it's that the 'common interest' principle isn't enough incentive for common people to rally together to care for something. There is no shortage of examples where this is true. Private property rights ensure that people have a vested interest in the value of the property. If they don't care for it, they will have wasted that property and will go broke. Further, this prevents obstruction of property rights by defining proper ownership.
passerby23 3 years ago 2
It hasn't been of much incentive for corporations to clean the water that they messed up. If you say that people don't want to take care of things, then I sure as hell don't want to pick one person out of the bunch to take charge of a resource. Just as when people say that humans are so awful, then I don't want to pick a human to lead me.
If the resources are broke, the commoners go broke so that argument is totally false. Do you possibly mean the garbage issue you said before?
dafatalgigabyte 3 years ago
Why WOULD there be an incentive for corporations when they can just dump their waste into publicly owned water? You can be damn sure if they owned the water themselves they would think twice about doing it.
I'm also very skeptical of the "all humans are awful" observation. I believe people are capable of doing very horrible things if placed in the type of environment or system conducive to them. The system we have now is such.
passerby23 3 years ago
It hasn't been of much incentive for corporations to clean the water that they messed up. If you say that people don't want to take care of things, then I sure as hell don't want to pick one person out of the bunch to take charge of a resource. Just as when people say that humans are so awful, then I don't want to pick a human to lead me.
If the resources are broke, the commoners go broke so that argument is totally false. Do you possibly mean the garbage issue you said before?
dafatalgigabyte 3 years ago
Commoners may go broke, but their share of the pie is so miniscule as to render the outcome insignificant. Besides, they have no control over it. The government does. Your "ownership" consists of handing over your tax dollars to the almighty government. Not only that, but the natural reaction with commonly owned property is to expect somebody else to deal with the problem since your share is so small. What results is neglect, waste, and ultimately crisis.
passerby23 3 years ago
Commoners may go broke, but their share of the pie is so miniscule as to render the outcome insignificant. Besides, they have no control over it. The government does. Your "ownership" consists of handing over your tax dollars to the almighty government. Not only that, but the natural reaction with commonly owned property is to expect somebody else to deal with the problem since your share is so small. What results is neglect, waste, and ultimately crisis.
passerby23 3 years ago
Where have I mentioned the government controlling the commons? Here I am speaking of looking at real live examples and you first tell me there are those where they didn't work for some unreal reason, and then you go on and say that I speak of partial or even full state capitalism, where the state owns the resource in question. Both miss the point.
You can be damn sure if people owned the water and industry themselves, they would think twice before dumping.
dafatalgigabyte 3 years ago
"You can be damn sure if people owned the water and industry themselves, they would think twice before dumping."
Dude, that's what I just said!
"Where have I mentioned the government controlling the commons?"
You didn't mention it, I did. The system we have now IS an example of tragedy of the commons, i.e. government representing the people (in theory) who collectively own property.
passerby23 3 years ago
The rainforest is not owned...hence not managed.
You ignore the nature of man in your understanding of a commune. The commune experiment has been run many times with disasterous results. What could it take to get you to give up such a failure ensuring philosophy if not the lives of millions of your elk?
stratvic 3 years ago 3
Did you even watch the video? Honestly nothing you have said in this comment thread gives me the impression you even watched the video.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Look no further than the disasterous state of the environment for a sound argument for the "tragedy of the commons."
passerby23 3 years ago
But the argument about the "tragedy of the commons" is that, individually, there is not enough incentive to care for a common good if your share is so trivial. Would vandalism and graffiti be so prevalent in a privatized society? Collectively owned property isn't cared for enough to preserve.
I would also add that using up resources and creating disasters may not be the intent, but it is certainly the end result. Parasitical or not, it's inefficient, neglectful, and wasteful.
passerby23 3 years ago 2
The incentive is created by an awareness. This collectively owned land would probably taken care of because the people that own it wouldn't want to ruin it, after all they live on it.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." They wouldn't want the land to be ruined on purpose, but the incentives are such that their stake in it is not enough to care for it. Does anyone on earth wilfully wish its destruction? Of course not, but this vague communal interest is not enough motivation. Would a logging company re-plant where they clear cut if they just leased the land for 4 weeks?
passerby23 3 years ago 3
Well, it's almost like the same argument as people wouldn't be peaceful without a state because they have no incentive to. It's kind of like Ayn Rand's "rational selfishness vs. irrational selfishness".
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
But there IS an incentive to be peaceful in the absence of the state. In fact, there are several incentives. It's the same reason why people litter. They don't do it to ruin the environment. But they rationalize that it's just one little piece of garbage that probably SOMEONE ELSE will eventually pick up. Well, eventually an accumulation of innocent enough litterers becomes a problem. Rational selfishness and irrational selfishness would lead to the same outcome with private property rights.
passerby23 3 years ago 2
I think that the "tragedy of the commons" is easily applied to any societal structure. It's no more or less relevant to communally owned land than it is to privately owned land. I don't think it's a good argument against communally owned land. I mean, what incentive wouldn't they have. It's not like your family doesn't clean their house.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
Communally owned land is precisely the kind of example where it IS a good argument to apply -- because it's COMMMONLY owned. A commonly owned house is another good example. There is an expectation that someone else with clean the dishes, or vacuum the floor, or take out the garbage. Now, could a private person let their house become a dump? Yes, but let the demise of their house be their punishment in that case. They are only decreasing its value by doing so.
passerby23 3 years ago 2
If you haven't noticed it is private companies that are leading in the way in destroying the environment and they do exactly because they assume someone else will clean it up. In your fancy capitalist jargon it's called an externality. I'd suggest you look into real examples of communally owned resources in history. It's something Hardin and you seem to be ignorant of.
buddhagem 3 years ago
You're making my point. I don't deny it is private companies damaging the environment. I agree they externalize costs. What I'm saying is the reason they can get away with it is because there is no definition or respect for private property rights. Where is a private company going to dump their waste? In communally owned lakes or land. Why? Because the repercussions are minimal and no one looks after it. If the property was privatized, you mitigate this kind of behavior.
passerby23 3 years ago 4
This is true, however I'm just making the point that the tragedy of the commons doesn't really happen if the people actually are "rationally selfish" rather than "irrationally selfish".
The problem is the state giving companies the opportunity to chop down a forest, sell everything, and the CEOs retire. If people didn't rely on the state to decide what happens to the property that belongs to them, then I'm not sure there would be much of a problem.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
We're certainly in agreement then. My argument is that it's the government to blame for the mess, not some notion of evil capitalist externalization. They externalize because they can and there is no incentive for them to do otherwise.
passerby23 3 years ago 2
I think the it's both. The government does this because the capitalists give them the incentive, by letting them in on the loot.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
Whoops, "I think THAT it's both" is what I meant to say.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
That's not an excuse. It's the government's job to protect people's rights. If capitalists are violating people's property rights, it's the government who should be stopping them. If I knocked on your door and said, "I'm here to murder your wife," would you say "Come on in, Mr. Murderer. Door is on the left." No, you're supposed to stop me.
passerby23 3 years ago
No, it's a perfectly acceptable excuse. The excuse you give for the capitalists is "human action" in which they try to maximize profits. Well... We can give the government the same excuse. They're essentially the same entity once they collude.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
Maybe I should clarify. I'm not excusing malfeasance of capitalists when they engage in it. They are surely culpable. What I'm saying is this behavior wouldn't happen were it not for gov't corruption or ineptitude. If they are violating rights, what is the outcome? Instead of punishment, they are protected, allowed to bribe, given a slap on the wrist, or in some cases, rewarded for their behavior. Doesn't happen in a free market.
passerby23 3 years ago 2
Of course, I agree with most of this. However, the opposite could be argued as well. Like, if there were no capitalists the government wouldn't be corrupt, or something to that effect. It's not really the stance I take though.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
My point is that the "evil capitalist" is tamed in a free market purely out of self-interest to stay in business or the risk to himself for violating other people's private property rights, which would be paramount. In the system we have now, there is far less incentive to exhibit good behavior in the marketplace other than the superficial purposes of PR. So, sure, you can't dismiss bad behavior, but get the gov't out of the way and problem solved. There are also recourses w/o government too.
passerby23 3 years ago
The problem you have is that the tragedy of the commons relies on "rationally selfish" individuals to ensure the demise of the commons. The only escape is through either one world wide political power exercising force to defeat individual action or private ownership of resources which retains individual action. It is a simple choice with wide ranging implications.
stratvic 3 years ago
*Didn't click Reply to stratvic*
stratvic, you're saying we'd need a one world wide political power to fix up...am I hearing this right...litter?! We do have custodial services, it's just another job that needs doing. Oh, and, privatizing water will just clean the water that is sold, not the other stuff that leaks into the rest of the environment. It's more economic to install a filtration system than clean the whole kitten kaboodle. Thanks profit-drive!
dafatalgigabyte 3 years ago
Well, if you own a lake for example, what incentive do you have to clean only water you are selling and pollute the rest? That doesn't make any sense. Plus, what if you are using the water for recreational purposes? Wouldn't your incentive be to keep the entire body of water clean? If people are so concerned about the water, why wouldn't an environmental group pool resources and buy it up? The problem isn't profit drive per se, but profit drive allowed to go astray and collude with government.
passerby23 3 years ago 2
"ne world wide political power exercising force to defeat individual action or private ownership of resources"
Kind of a false dichotomy, what about mutually-assured arrangements, which is what buddhagem was talking about. Essentially, his point was that the communal interest in preservation isn't all that different from private interest except communal interests is directly affected by all the decisions, so it's the same in all ways except for where it does a better job.
mutulus 3 years ago
"communal interest in preservation "
So the tragedy of the commons is shifted from individuals competing to exploit the commons, to communities racing to exploit the commons, and within those communities another race between individuals to exploit the resources of the community. You are just shifting the scope and focus and not tackling the problem.
stratvic 3 years ago
If your property is basically the "stuff" you actively use, I don't see how that could be abused. You can only use so much stuff. It would be kinda hard to convince anybody that you're actively using ten homes or twenty cars etc. In such a society the need for a "vacation home" that stays empty 9 or 10 months out of the year would be absurd. But any disputes would be dealt with at a local level by those involved. There are plenty of good conflict resolution procedures that could be used.
buddhagem 3 years ago