Capitalism and the Tragedy of the Commons

[mikewrona]

http://www.spectacle.org/497/commons.html

Capitalism and the Tragedy of the Commons

Capitalism's most dangerous flaw is that it has no inherent method for dealing with the tragedy of the commons.

The tragedy of the commons is the doctrine which insists that we will always add one too many sheep to the village commons, destroying it. In other words, we will always opt for an immediate benefit at the expense of less tangible values such as the availability of a resource to future generations. When you look around you, it is immediately obvious, if your eyes are open, that the tragedy of the commons is an accurate description of human nature; such disaparate human creations and institutions as Times Square, Usenet and Love Canal all represent tragedies of the commons.

Most of capitalism's cheerleaders simply never mention the tragedy of the commons, or deny that such a thing exists. The all wise invisible hand of the marketplace, some claim, is as competent to keep us out of future trouble as it is to grant us future benefit.

But you must truly have blinders on to believe this, as the visible effects of human behavior prove it is not so. To pick an example particularly important to me: I have been diving the coral reefs of Pennekamp State Park in Key Largo, Florida for almost twenty years. In that period of time, the glorious coral heads have given way to spottier, smaller stretches of discolored coral, and fish that were common (such as grouper) are now never seen at all. The degradation of the reefs is painfully visible in two decades of my lifetime and the cause is patently obvious. Each fisherman takes more fish than he should, each dive boat takes too many divers on too many trips, and the shipping companies run too many large ships, including oil tankers, over and eventually into the reefs.

Its all capitalism: the dive operators, the shipping companies, the commercial fishermen. Free market capitalism dictates that they will ultimately destroy the Pennekamp reefs. In an even more stunning example of the same phenomenon, the citizens of the Philippines dynamite their coral reefs so that you can buy brightly colored coral fragments in souvenir shops.

It would be easy and convenient to say that the tragedy of the commons is a modern phenomenon, that humans were not capable of doing too much damage until their population exceeded certain numbers or their technological tools became powerful beyond a certain point. However, this threshold was crossed in human prehistory when it is likely that certain other species, such as the wooly mammoth, were hunted to extinction.

Free market capitalism teaches us how to better our lives, and those of other people, by reaching out and taking, and by doing so more efficiently and productively. Capitalism is very bad at teaching us when to refrain from taking. That part of ourselves which steps forward to suggest that "thou shalt not"--named the "superego" by Freud--simply does not form part of the free market system. Just as the ego and the id in the Freudian paradigm must refer to something outside themselves for the restraint that so often means survival, humans must look outside the capitalist system for the self-restraint that will avoid the destruction of every commons used by us. Our history also illustrates that the destruction of the commons will not be stopped by shame, moral admonitions, or cultural mores anywhere near so effectively as it will be by the will of the people expressed as a protective mandate; in other words, by government.

Hayek, the philosopher of free markets, admits this when he says, in discussing the importance of government to a free market system:
To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition.
In fact, Hayek is dealing directly with the tragedy of the commons when he says a page later that free market pricing fails when "the damage caused to others by certain uses of property cannot be effectively charged to the owner of that property." He continues: Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the danger for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism.

Hayek was not a libertarian; he believed in striking the right balance between government and markets. Capitalism may contribute a large part of human welfare and progress, but it cannot do so without some external constraints.

[moonshine]

Mike,

The basis of the article is ludicrous. There are no commons in pure capitalism! Thomas Woods explains and addresses your example of overfishing:

Now consider for a moment all the inefficiency and misallocation associated with public property and ownership. In general, in cases in which individual property rights do not exist, the result is the so-called "tragedy of the commons" – overuse, exhaustion, inadequate maintenance, and the like. Since none of the users of the property is its owner, and indeed no discrete owner exists at all, a bias in favor of present consumption and against the maintenance of the property’s long-term capital value is introduced. Thus a tendency to overfish would exist with a pond available in common to all comers; a private owner, on the other hand, thinks not simply of what can be profitably extracted from his property in the short term but also of the need to maintain a stock of fish to reproduce for next year and the year after that.

[mikewrona]

Mike,

The basis of the article is ludicrous. There are no commons in pure capitalism! Thomas Woods explains and addresses your example of overfishing:

Thomas Woods is ludicrous.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Thomas Woods is ludicrous.

I'm getting a headache now. Come on. I think certain things regarding how the human population has disrupted the natural order of things is obvious. Mike's example is one of them, but we all know there are still more than we can count.

Philosophy is...whatever... fine, I guess.

But reality teaches us a lot more: The planet really doesn't know from philosophy. It knows when it is dying. Reality vs. philosophy. Pretty simple.

[mikewrona]

I'm getting a headache now. Come on. I think certain things regarding how the human population has disrupted the natural order of things is obvious. Mike's example is one of them, but we all know there are still more than we can count.

Philosophy is...whatever... fine, I guess.

But reality teaches us a lot more: The planet really doesn't know from philosophy. It knows when it is dying. Reality vs. philosophy. Pretty simple.

If Thomas Woods was right, the Cod fishery on the Grand Banks would still be in operation but it was overfished by commerical fisherman hauling in every bit of fish they could for profit today.
Well, they had their heyday. And now they are out of business. That's what capitalism does. It eats itself to death.

He ignores the reality of a world fishery for a comparison to a family owned pond. What a genius.

[TheRightView]

To put it bluntly "Everything in moderation is good for you."

This is true in most cases. Capitalism will always be taken to the extreme because that is how one using the system can get farther ahead than the others(one need not be greedy to play but it pays off in the end if you are and don't care about the consequences). It's one thing to build a better mousetrap, quite another to destroy an enviroment to eliminate the mouse.

If it weren't so late at night I'd write in a much more understandable manner.

[WestSideJohn]

The problem with the pond analogy is that the world isn't a single, privately-owned pond with an owner who plans for the future. A better analogy would be a pond stocked with a finite amount of fish, and an ever-growing number of fisherman all trying to get their share (or more) of the catch.

I'm always amazed by people who ignore or discount human nature. Humans are greedy. Humans aspire. Humans want more. Now, sometimes that's a good thing. The promise of a better life is what motivates us to get an education or work harder or create something new. Other times human greed isn't such a good thing, and I'm sure you can all think of your own examples.

So we've got a couple of options. We can recognize human nature as a factor, address it, and create systems that adapt and adjust to it, and mitigate the negative effects. Or we can pretend it doesn't exist and then wonder why things happen that give capitalism a black eye.

[TheRightView]

The problem with the pond analogy is that the world isn't a single, privately-owned pond with an owner who plans for the future. A better analogy would be a pond stocked with a finite amount of fish, and an ever-growing number of fisherman all trying to get their share (or more) of the catch.

I'm always amazed by people who ignore or discount human nature. Humans are greedy. Humans aspire. Humans want more. Now, sometimes that's a good thing. The promise of a better life is what motivates us to get an education or work harder or create something new. Other times human greed isn't such a good thing, and I'm sure you can all think of your own examples.

So we've got a couple of options. We can recognize human nature as a factor, address it, and create systems that adapt and adjust to it, and mitigate the negative effects. Or we can pretend it doesn't exist and then wonder why things happen that give capitalism a black eye.

Once again, I have to agree with you westsidejohn, you are making very valid points and are doing it more succinctly(sp.) than I have done.

[mikewrona]

The problem with the pond analogy is that the world isn't a single, privately-owned pond with an owner who plans for the future. A better analogy would be a pond stocked with a finite amount of fish, and an ever-growing number of fisherman all trying to get their share (or more) of the catch.

I'm always amazed by people who ignore or discount human nature. Humans are greedy. Humans aspire. Humans want more. Now, sometimes that's a good thing. The promise of a better life is what motivates us to get an education or work harder or create something new. Other times human greed isn't such a good thing, and I'm sure you can all think of your own examples.

So we've got a couple of options. We can recognize human nature as a factor, address it, and create systems that adapt and adjust to it, and mitigate the negative effects. Or we can pretend it doesn't exist and then wonder why things happen that give capitalism a black eye.

Here's the nonsense that a group like Capitalism.org regularly puts out.
It tells you what should happen but rarely does. Read the part about protecting the land value on privately held commercial lands. Then think about the lands owned by Bethlehem Steel, Roblin Steel, Republic Steel, Mobile Oil, Con-Agra, Wickwire Spencer, etc.

You've got to love it when they make comparisons between a modern 1st world nation like Scotland and 3rd world India. Particularly since India has only been independent for 50 years and was controlled by Great Britain for the 200 previous years.

Environment
Doesn't capitalism destroy the environment?
No. Capitalism is the system of individual rights. It is the greatest protector of man's environment' (as opposed to the protection of the environment at the expense of man's well-being).

How is this possible?

Under capitalism all property is privately owned. If you pollute your own property that is your business (but in doing so you reduce the property value which would not be in your self-interest). However, the minute your pollution spreads to another person's property, and causes objectively provable damage, the owners of that property can sue you as a matter of right.

The right to property is not the privilege to damage or pollute the property of others. Witness that the privately owned locks and streams of Scotland are far cleaner than the government owned cesspools of socialist India.

What is the solution to pollution?
As for the disposing of the pollution of factories, this is a technological solution -- and capitalism, as the system of technological progress, is the only system that can provide such a solution

[colossus27]

The tragedy of the commons is the doctrine which insists that we will always add one too many sheep to the village commons, destroying it. In other words, we will always opt for an immediate benefit at the expense of less tangible values such as the availability of a resource to future generations. When you look around you, it is immediately obvious, if your eyes are open, that the tragedy of the commons is an accurate description of human nature; such disaparate human creations and institutions as Times Square, Usenet and Love Canal all represent tragedies of the commons.

Ya know, I take you off my ignore list and I find this.

Love Canal is a tragedy, due to an ignorant and self-absorbed school board. Tragedy of the commons? Call it what you want. A polished turd still stinks.

It blossomed into a complete and utter failure of government to defend it's citizenry. How very shallow of you, living so close to NF, to keep spreading posting misinformation that some misinformed idiot wrote.

It [the Love Canal deed] opens: "This Indenture [is] made the 28th day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty Three, between Hooker Electrochemical Company. . . and the Board of Education of the School District of the City of Niagara Falls, New York," which would, "in consideration of One Dollar" paid to Hooker, receive title to the described property. The kicker is the deed’s closing paragraph:

Prior to the delivery of this instrument of conveyance, the grantee herein has been advised by the grantor that the premises above described have been filled, in whole or in part, to the present grade level thereof with waste products resulting from the manufacturing of chemicals by the grantor at its plant in the City of Niagara Falls, New York, and the grantee assumes all risk and liability incident to the use thereof. It is therefore understood and agreed that, as a part of the consideration for this conveyance and as a condition thereof, no claim, suit, action or demand of any nature whatsoever shall ever be made by the grantee, its successors or assigns, against the grantor, its successors or assigns, for injury to a person or persons, including death resulting therefrom, or loss of or damage to property caused by, in connection with or by reason of the presence of said industrial wastes. It is further agreed as a condition hereof that each subsequent conveyance of the aforesaid lands shall be made subject to the foregoing provisions and conditions.

[mikewrona]

Ya know, I take you off my ignore list and I find this.

Love Canal is a tragedy, due to an ignorant and self-absorbed school board. Tragedy of the commons? Call it what you want. A polished turd still stinks.

It blossomed into a complete and utter failure of government to defend it's citizenry. How very shallow of you, living so close to NF, to keep spreading posting misinformation that some misinformed idiot wrote.

I think you are one of those people who would blame the rape victim rather than the rapist.

How noble of you to blame the school board and not include Hooker Chemical. A company, who by Libertarian definition, would be stupid to ruin it's personal property.

I'm glad you've come back to read some more. I must be effective.

[WestSideJohn]

Love Canal "happened" before I moved to Buffalo, so I'm having a tough time understanding how a school board is responsible for dumping toxic chemicals. Can you summarize for me?

[colossus27]

Love Canal "happened" before I moved to Buffalo, so I'm having a tough time understanding how a school board is responsible for dumping toxic chemicals. Can you summarize for me?

This is probably the most intelligent thing I've read on the subject.

http://reason.com/8102/fe.ez.the.shtml

[colossus27]

I think you are one of those people who would blame the rape victim rather than the rapist.

How noble of you to blame the school board and not include Hooker Chemical. A company, who by Libertarian definition, would be stupid to ruin it's personal property.

I'm glad you've come back to read some more. I must be effective.

Nope. Back to ignore for you. Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice....

[TheRightView]

Nope. Back to ignore for you. Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice....

wait, wait i've heard that quote before....didn't G.W.B. say something like that and it went
—San Jose, Calif., April 21, 2006 ... “There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again.”

I thought this one was funny too...Bush a girl? LOL he said it.
"I want to thank my friend, Sen. Bill Frist, for joining us today. … He married a Texas girl, I want you to know. (Laughter.) Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me."—Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004