and you have never heard of the book “governing the commons” by Elinor Ostrom, which is a book explaining in great detail and with the use of real examples how the tragedy of the commons can be avoided
Looking at her work, the first stipulation on pooled resources is:
Clearly defined boundaries: Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself.
That seems like she is aware that commons can be misused and simply calling out that societies have found ways to manage them, which in turn kinda refutes the arguement being made in the post.
no it doesn’t? these are people working together in order to all use something, not someone who guards something with weapons and takes a cut of the value of your work
You’re adding in additional concepts that change the arguement. The original post talks about fences and guarding resources, not about someone taking a cut of other people’s work.
Additionally, even in the self-governance principles mentioned above there is a need for:
Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or by both.
You could argue that “sanctions” and “weapons/violence” are separate things, but ultimately even the economists mentioned above call out there is a need for enforcement on how “commons” are used.
The tragedy of the commons is ahistorical bullshit used to prop up bad policy, and it is completely detached from any resemblance of how the commons actually functioned. Garrett Hardin had no idea what he was talking about. Elinor Ostrom literally won the Nobel Prize in Economics for her work studying how common-pool resources are collectively managed in real life.
The tragedy of the commons, as Hardin put it, supported the need for government to impose regulation to prevent “rationally self-interested” actors from depleting the common resource. However, the scenario he imagines in which that’s necessary does not mirror the real world. What Ostrom found was that when faced with a dwindling resource, communities find ways to cooperate and develop rules to manage those resources without requiring a central top-down authority.
I actually don’t find all that much connection between the image I posted and the tragedy of the commons argument. (I just really hate Garrett Hardin.) My interpretation of the post is less an advocacy for no rules in managing common pool resources, and more a complaint and pondering of how work seems to lose meaning when it is on behalf of someone else
This person has never heard of the tragedy of the commons
and you have never heard of the book “governing the commons” by Elinor Ostrom, which is a book explaining in great detail and with the use of real examples how the tragedy of the commons can be avoided
Looking at her work, the first stipulation on pooled resources is:
That seems like she is aware that commons can be misused and simply calling out that societies have found ways to manage them, which in turn kinda refutes the arguement being made in the post.
no it doesn’t? these are people working together in order to all use something, not someone who guards something with weapons and takes a cut of the value of your work
You’re adding in additional concepts that change the arguement. The original post talks about fences and guarding resources, not about someone taking a cut of other people’s work.
Additionally, even in the self-governance principles mentioned above there is a need for:
You could argue that “sanctions” and “weapons/violence” are separate things, but ultimately even the economists mentioned above call out there is a need for enforcement on how “commons” are used.
Edit: quotes are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
The tragedy of the commons is ahistorical bullshit used to prop up bad policy, and it is completely detached from any resemblance of how the commons actually functioned. Garrett Hardin had no idea what he was talking about. Elinor Ostrom literally won the Nobel Prize in Economics for her work studying how common-pool resources are collectively managed in real life.
Isn’t the whole point of the “tradegy of the commons” narrative to draw attention to the fact that the “commons” need governance?
The image you posted seems to be in support of non-goverance, which would be the opposite of what people like Elinor Ostrom advocated.
The tragedy of the commons, as Hardin put it, supported the need for government to impose regulation to prevent “rationally self-interested” actors from depleting the common resource. However, the scenario he imagines in which that’s necessary does not mirror the real world. What Ostrom found was that when faced with a dwindling resource, communities find ways to cooperate and develop rules to manage those resources without requiring a central top-down authority.
I actually don’t find all that much connection between the image I posted and the tragedy of the commons argument. (I just really hate Garrett Hardin.) My interpretation of the post is less an advocacy for no rules in managing common pool resources, and more a complaint and pondering of how work seems to lose meaning when it is on behalf of someone else
I don’t have any issue with the bottom part of the image, it’s the top part that seems to be oblivious to how the world works.