From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Sat Oct 18 2003 - 12:56:23 MDT
[Kharin]
Hmmm. The idea of the tragedy of the commons has been much debated and many problems identified with it (not least of which is the illiberal nature of some of Hardin's prescriptions, something Hayek had already discussed in another context: http://jim.com/hayek.htm).
[rhinoceros]
What I found most interesting in Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" (http://dieoff.com/page95.htm) is how he laid down a number of clearly identified issues in a way that they can be discussed, accepted, or refuted. I already mentioned I have objections or reservations to several points he made.
I also have objections to Hayek's text (http://jim.com/hayek.htm). It is also interesting, but in a different way. It is built upon concepts such as planning, power, individualism, socialism, freedom, security, liberalism. democracy, totalitarianism etc, which are understood in different ways by readers of different background. For this reason, each one of us will probably find his strawmen in there (I already did). Hayek's text can be easily perceived as a polemic opinion piece.
[Kharin]
For example, Bjorn Lomborg argued that in many cases natural resources can be reasonably be described as being infinite, in which case the issue of a tragedy of the commons simply does not arise (though I think that idea is perhaps worthy of being more sceptical about).
[rhinoceros]
This is a good point to raise an objection to Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario. Of course, natural resources are not really practically unlimited (although I am not sure which ones are the "many cases" Lomborg referred to and how significant they are). However, science and technology have been working on that. Just imagine unlimited energy... It could make this a "non zero sum" game so that we leave behind the "Tragedy of the Commons" is an open bet. Is this ever going to be practically possible? Here is another interesting discussion...
[Kharin]
Ostrom argued that problems of the kind Hardin described can be solved by alternative means than privatization or centralization, such as “polycentric” governance systems, in which central authorities provide broad enforcement, but let local communities set their own rules as much as possible. For example, problems of overfishing of lobsters along the Maine coast have been solved by allowing local lobster fishermen to informally regulate certain parts of the coast, working in conjunction with the state government.
[rhinoceros]
This seems reasonable, and I would vote for some kind of "complementarity principle" as well. But how exactly can such administrative measures address the problem of the commons? Hmm... is it about creating groups small enough to watch their members and to personally feel the consequences of the actions of others in their commons? A kind of defensive partial collectivization?
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29549> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 18 2003 - 12:56:30 MDT