This is my third follow-up post to "Grist and the tragedy of the panicked enviro",
where I try to clarify the institutional frameworks for understanding
and addressing resource problems, in response to confusion in comments
by others.
cyberfarer
Posted 9:26 pm
27 Aug 2009
... [addressed to T Worstall]
In fact I do
understand what Hardin was saying. Hardin sets up a hypothetcial
situation and then sets about knocking it down. We call that a strawman
argument.
But you didn't address my salient point. We live in an
era of the ascendency of private property and yet we have witnessed an
acceleration of the destruction of our natural heritage. Under the
management and control of private interests, we can witness the
remaining rain forests of south east Asia being raised for palm oil
plantations. Under the control and and management of private interests
we can witness boreal forests being decimated. In fact, over the past
fifty years as control and managenment of resources to pass to private
interests, we witness the acceleration of the their destruction.
The reality puts the lie to Hardin's strawman argument.
The
issue of sustainability is not one of private or public ownership as
The Church and its followers would prefer to frame it. The issue is the
central role of profit above all else in our culture.
The free
market economy generates wealth by converting a living planet to a dead
planet; that is, by converting living ecosystems into commodities for
trade and profit. To the free market and its economists, a forest which
provides erosion control, flood control, climate and water
conditioning, habitat, sustenance, and any number of other services not
only to humans but all other species is only valuable in our free
market system when it has been converted to lumber or pulverized for
paper or some other use. That is the true tragedy of the commons. Not
ownership, but the short-sighted stupidity of people and especially of
those worship wealth without understanding its source.
TokyoTom
Posted 2:29 am
29 Aug 2009
cyberfarer, I`m sorry, but this couldn`t be more wrong in its
understanding of WHY messes happen (and they undeniably do); the result
is that you (and Sacks) have no clue where to start in trying to solve
problems:
The free market economy generates wealth by converting a living planet
to a dead planet; that is, by converting living ecosystems into
commodities for trade and profit.
The
free market system is really simply people trading what they have to
others for what they want, and it works quite well where resources are
owned (either privately or by communities). It can, however, be a
powerful engine of destruction for resources that are not owned - such
as for resources sourced where property rights are not protected or the
government (elites) "own" too much. Thus our continued political
struggles over giveaways of public resources, the destruction of the
Amazon/Indonesian forests (and Philippine under Marcos), and the
collapse of fisheries that fishermen - often just guys trying to make a
living - have no rights to actually protect the resource.
To the free market and its
economists, a forest which provides erosion control, flood control,
climate and water conditioning, habitat, sustenance, and any number of
other services not only to humans but all other species is only
valuable in our free market system when it has been converted to lumber
or pulverized for paper or some other use. That is the true tragedy of
the commons.
You
are only right in part, as all of these things have obvious value, and
people protect them privately or band together as groups to manage them
wherever they desire and can (and are not prevented by the government).
There is an awful lot of private and community conservation going on
around the world. The absolute worst cases are where the resources are
owned by governments, with rights to exploit being leased to companies
that have no property rights and thus no longer-term rights or obligations.
Not ownership, but the short-sighted stupidity of people
and especially of those worship wealth without understanding its source.
No,
absolutely ownership; people and groups compete for resources, and can
preserve valuable ones only when they can PROTECT them by excluding
others (i.e., owning) them
You, like Sacks, think that the only
way to solve problems is to radically change either capitalism (while
ignoring worse destruction takes place outside of free market regimes)
or human nature. Sorry, but this is blind and stupid, and ignores the
fact that local traction is available for most problems.
See the case of the Amazon, for example:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/24/capitalism-the-destructive-exploitation-of-the-amazon-and-the-tragedy-of-the-government-owned-commons.aspx
I
highly recommend you start studying (not simply free thinking), which
will make your very legitimate concerns much more effective. I mean,
even the environmental groups are calling for better property
rights/protection for fisheries, species, forests and water. Are they
stupid and evil too?