The Tragedy of Private Property

A closer look at Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons." This entire argument has been pulled from the Anarchist FAQ:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

Honors for This Video:
#13 - Most Discussed (Today) - Nonprofits & Activism
#79 - Most Discussed (This Week) - Nonprofits & Activism
#80 - Most Viewed (Today) - Nonprofits & Activism
#31 - Top Favorites (Today) - Nonprofits & Activism
#22 - Top Rated (Today) - Nonprofits & Activism

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Tragedy
• of
• the
• Commons
• Garrett
• Hardin
• Private
• Property
• Anarchism
• Anarchy
• Socialism
• Capitalism
• grassroots
• outreach

[sexdrugsRnR]

disappointing. the argument just points fingers, and grounds itself on assumptions, while hardin grounds his arguments on the 'worst case scenario'.

[buddhagem]

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.

[dubified89]

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

[gergenheimer]

@glocksout Let's clear our palettes and try another example - imagine a researcher who has collected data on human life expectancy, fitness, procreation rates, cancer rates, etc. This researcher uses complex algorithms to crunch the data and concludes that the "optimum" height for a human being is 6'1" - because, on average, people of this height live longer, are healthier, have more children, etc. His "optimum" height assessment comes from subjective criteria he chose.

[gergenheimer]

@glocksout You suggested that science can be used to tell us things such as "optimum" body mass, or an "optimum" level of pollution. "Optimum" is a subjective value judgment - that is, it depends on subjective criteria and values. Obviously, these criteria and values are relevant to the person who chooses them, but they have no place in scientific inquiry. The optimal mass of a chicken or optimal amount of pollution depends on context, hence, these concepts have no scientific meaning.

[glocksout]

@gergenheimer The fact that results vary does not change the fact that the practice is not "arbitrary." You're trying to squeeze your way out of this by suggesting chicken producers do not have non-arbitrary feeding schedules for their chickens. And last I checked, there are no regulations on what a chicken size should be, so you're taking this wildly off course because you know you're wrong. Scientists know how ground-level ozone is formed. You're taking bodies of work and calling it random

[gergenheimer]

@glocksout Eradicate my ignorance then - please describe the objective, scientific process whereby you would determine the objectively "optimum" weight for, say, a chicken. Be specific, and keep in mind, chickens have an annoying natural tendency to grow in varying sizes and weights. Poultry producers will be thrilled when science can tell them exactly how much each chicken should weigh - but you'll figure it out, because there are no limits to what science do, right?

[glocksout]

@gergenheimer You must have been scammed if you think you received a valuable education when you clearly don't know the difference between arbitrary and qualitative.

[gergenheimer]

@glocksout nice try, but I graduated summa cum laude from a highly-rated university with a minor in biology - that's why we are having this argument - I understand how the scientific method works . . . and you clearly don't. Yes, "optimum body mass" is also a subjective assessment - optimum for whom? Optimum for the health of the animal? Optimum for me to slaughter and eat? And what about variation in size and digestive efficiency between individual animals? Quit while you're behind.

[glocksout]

@gergenheimer So how many calories to feed an animal for optimum body mass is subjective, and non-scientific? How much pollution an environment can handle is the same scenario. Just because you don't understand science doesn't make it arbitrary.

[gergenheimer]

@glocksout again, how do you define the "correct", "allowable" amount of pollution? Taking empirical measurements does not mean that all decisions made based on that data are "scientific". Science deals with "is" statements (i.e. testable, objective facts). If someone claims to know the optimum amount of pollution that should be allowed, they are making an "ought" statement (i.e. a subjective value judgment - which is, by definition, non-scientific) QED.

[glocksout]

@gergenheimer You're completely wrong. Scientists can use measuring devices to test the atmosphere for pollutants. They can factor in natural scrubbing, air currents, sea currents, and present a reliable number for allowable pollutants into the environment with negligible effect. It's far from meaningless. It's empirical.

[gergenheimer]

@gergenheimer Not to mention that the FDA is the same agency that uses gun-toting thugs to kick in peoples' doors and confiscate natural foods such as raw milk. People like you, who have a love affair with state authority, always seem to turn a blind eye to the arbitrary violence that is used to enforce politically-motivated, arbitrary rules.