Posted here by popular demand: The Tragedy of the Commons

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Political and Social Issues: Conversations and Debates : One Thread

Here ya go, Tator. If you want a bit of discussion about this topic, you might go to http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 30, 2002

Answers

Ok. We have boundaries in life. City, county, state, nation, continent, and Earth. You have a senario with no boundaries seperating the people. That sounds like a unique blend on Socialism and Libertarianism. Socialism in how they have to share the land and the Burden of one another. Libertarianism in how they make their own decitions. You cant have both togather. Doomed to fail.

A pure Socialist commons thing would be that they all share in the profit and the failer. Even if one does better that the other, they get the same. A pure Libertarian commons thingy would have boundaries. Fences. If one person makes a bad decision and has too many cattle for has land it will be over grazed and the animals will die. That wont affect the others. Fences. Privite propery that isnt shared by the collective. Some will do well, if they are smart and keep it to a minimum. Some will fail, if they are stupid and go Cow Buying Mad.

Now if they do something that affects your land, like throwing cow shit into your feild and it kills the grass or something, then the coarts can handle it. And you should be justly compinsated. If he does somthing to hisland that affects your profit or your property value, etc., etc, (kinda like your Mountain thing), then you should be compensated or the offending action stopped.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), February 02, 2002.


The commons is more than just cattle. How about the fact that we all share the "commons" of the environment? (You know, the oceans, the groundwater, the rivers, the air we breath, and all the other various resources we share: food, fertilizer, lumber, iron ore, copper, oil. Etc. I could list a few hundred other items. They are all just like the "commons" with the cow example.

Forget the fences. Your libertarian ideals won't work here, I don't think, no matter how far you bend reality. Wish they would; they won't.

-- joj (jump@off.c), February 03, 2002.


I said that if a person or buisness does something that affects the quality/value that they should be compinsated or the offending action stopped. And oil will run out, Joe. Then we will finaly have to go to other means of energy. Hopfully cleaner. And cheaper with less political intervintion. Did you know that the Gulf War was really to try and keep Oil prices high? With less compatition the prices are higher.

And thats another reason democrats dont want to drill in Alaska. Higher prices at the pump will cause people to want to find a better way. Perhaps solar or hydrogen. I agree with this kinda. Kind of a sticky issue. Most Libertarians disagree with that stance. Plus I think Alaska is too beautiful for all that. But at times I think drilling would be a good idea. Like Sept. 11th. We shouldnt depend on these people.

I know I am wandering again. Sorry.

But the cow thing, government should set standards. Air, water, etc. But they should let the states be more specific. A rich state like Cal. could afford to have higher standards. But a poor state like Miss. has enough troble getting buisnesses here. They should have just a tad bit lower. That would attract buisnesses to some poorer states and maybe there will be a redistrabution of wealth. I am not talking about big differences. Just make the deadlines a bit later but have the same standards. That might have the same affect.

Let the Feds be general and the States be specific. Is that too much to ask? You vote for your state reps too!

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), February 03, 2002.


Joe?

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), February 08, 2002.

Oops!!! I hope he didn't get lost when I catagorized the threads.

My bad!!!!

-- Okie Dan (okiedan@oklahoma.net), February 09, 2002.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ