Private ownership as a solution to the tragedy of the commons.
Social scientists had a dim view of human nature.
The prevailing view since William Forster Lloyd's pamphlet has been that individuals acting in their ignorant but rational self-interest would deplete available common resources, having no incentive to preserve them for the future let alone for others.
Recent studies have found exceptions to disprove the rule that unregulated commons are doomed. 2009 Nobel Prize Winner Elinor Ostrom showed small groups evolving to share resources collaboratively and sustainably without top-down government input.
These examples of successful local governance appeals to atavism and the related fetishes of small-government and primitive lifestyles.
But while small may be sustainable it is not necessarily resilient, especially in the face of external shocks. There are very good reasons why these organic approaches are still 'alternative' and not 'dominant.' By definition, they do not scale. At least, not as well as sets of rules made under the Hobbesian bargain where we tolerate a centralised government that protects order by monopolising and projecting force.
Aside: the real-world victories of nations over tribes should be recognised by adherents of practice-beats-theory Ostrom's law, right?
From the state preserving and in turn depending upon the people it governs comes another solution to the Tragedy of the Commons: private ownership.
How it works: to stop hordes of individuals exploiting the commons, place enforceable limits. Pick one of the horde. Delegate possession. Make the commons un-common.
Let's say you are that lucky horde member turned owner. It used to be that you needed noble blood to be in line for a grant from crown land, but in this modern age a small deposit and a crippling loan will get your name on a deed.
Now what do you do?
Keeping in mind the role of private ownership in averting tragedies of the commons, do you place primacy on the land, learning how to adapt to it and preserve it?
Or do you exploit the heck out of it, say, slapping up as many rendered-wall faux-Tuscan townhouses as planning regs allow, molding it into an expression of your self-interest to prove your prowess to the rest of the commoners?
You are fortunate enough to be part of a system that chooses to protect resources by rolling the dice on the wisdom of private owners like yourself, instead of removing itself so that tribes can have a go. You enjoy the tyranny of the state rather than that of the village.
Do you allow what is under the care of your ownership to become once again common?
Social scientists had a dim view of human nature.
The prevailing view since William Forster Lloyd's pamphlet has been that individuals acting in their ignorant but rational self-interest would deplete available common resources, having no incentive to preserve them for the future let alone for others.
Recent studies have found exceptions to disprove the rule that unregulated commons are doomed. 2009 Nobel Prize Winner Elinor Ostrom showed small groups evolving to share resources collaboratively and sustainably without top-down government input.
These examples of successful local governance appeals to atavism and the related fetishes of small-government and primitive lifestyles.
But while small may be sustainable it is not necessarily resilient, especially in the face of external shocks. There are very good reasons why these organic approaches are still 'alternative' and not 'dominant.' By definition, they do not scale. At least, not as well as sets of rules made under the Hobbesian bargain where we tolerate a centralised government that protects order by monopolising and projecting force.
Aside: the real-world victories of nations over tribes should be recognised by adherents of practice-beats-theory Ostrom's law, right?
From the state preserving and in turn depending upon the people it governs comes another solution to the Tragedy of the Commons: private ownership.
How it works: to stop hordes of individuals exploiting the commons, place enforceable limits. Pick one of the horde. Delegate possession. Make the commons un-common.
Let's say you are that lucky horde member turned owner. It used to be that you needed noble blood to be in line for a grant from crown land, but in this modern age a small deposit and a crippling loan will get your name on a deed.
Now what do you do?
Keeping in mind the role of private ownership in averting tragedies of the commons, do you place primacy on the land, learning how to adapt to it and preserve it?
Or do you exploit the heck out of it, say, slapping up as many rendered-wall faux-Tuscan townhouses as planning regs allow, molding it into an expression of your self-interest to prove your prowess to the rest of the commoners?
You are fortunate enough to be part of a system that chooses to protect resources by rolling the dice on the wisdom of private owners like yourself, instead of removing itself so that tribes can have a go. You enjoy the tyranny of the state rather than that of the village.
Do you allow what is under the care of your ownership to become once again common?
Comments
Post a Comment