A tragedy the "Commons" certainly are, but the core reason is not "human morality" but the use of Collective force. by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Most of us are familiar with the term "tragedy of the commons". The article of the same name was originally written by Garrett Hardin for the journal "Science" in 1968. While a fascinating study with excellent insights into the human plight, the idea behind the concept is not appropriately titled. The tragedy definitely occurs to the "commons", but it is caused by the "collective". If we fail to recognize this, we also fail to understand the nature of commons. .
If we start with Hardin’s excellent sheep herder example, it is really all we need to point out the logistics problem. In Hardin’s "pasture", the land is shared by a group of herders. He points out the natural problem in this "sharing" of a resource. Since each herder has no individual responsibility to the land or to the others, the more animals that particular herder can squeeze onto the land, the more it will benefit him with no direct consequences, other than the eventual degradation of the land that is shared by all. So, the individual gains much by overgrazing, while bearing only a small proportion of the overall loss that is shared. Other herders can only come to this same conclusion. Thus, the "tragedy" occurs; unrestrained use by the individual to the detriment of all.
We must stop and give credit to Hardin before we point out the obvious shortcoming of the argument. Hardin later pointed out that he should have titled the article "The Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons". While this is certainly closer to the core problem he so enlightened, it is not completely accurate. Regulation is not what is needed; just compensation is. A better title would have been, "The Tragedy of the Collective".
Hardin’s example and the other excellent examples in the book and any present day example we have, including our monetary and resource appropriation system, are all examples of "collective" and forceful use of "common" goods. There can be no "common" ownership that benefits only small or large groups. Common ownership, and the commons, are just that; common to all and must benefit all.
The article itself assumes the scarcity of the resource. Herders had reached the point where the demand for grazing land exceeded availability. Scarcity is directly proportional to population and also availability of the resource. An important question is can common ownership prevail under the restraints of scarcity?
What is not alluded to is the most important factor that must occur for the herders to "take" more for themselves and leave less for others. They must have the power of collective "force" behind them. In "common" terms, by overgrazing of the common pasture without forfeiting compensation, they have committed theft of a commonly owned resource. In order to do this without opposition, they must have enough collective force to fend off the protests of the property owners, all of us.
This force is the same force that allows the Federal Reserve to do what it does, confiscate the value of "all" of our savings and apply it to their newly minted currency, which possesses no "inherent" value. They are "confiscating" the value of what we all share, money, and distributing it where they see fit. Our herders in Hardin’s example are doing the exact same thing with a different resource.
There is no need for "morality" in this argument. Morality is based on making proper choices without force. Morality, as wothy a cause as it is, is submissive to aggressive force.
It is force that is needed to collect and distribute the necessary compensation to the rightful "common" owners of the pasture. If we all agree that we own something in common, then it only follows that we all must agree that exclusive "use", use that excludes others from its benefits, of that good must be compensated for to the rightful owners, all of us.
There is no escaping the need to choose the "use" of force. It will be used one way or the other. If the herders are allowed free rein of common pasture, then it has been used in that manner, used by the collective to benefit who they wish. It may be the "commons" that experience the tragedy, but it is the "collective" that has done the damage. It is not the "existence" of the commons that causes the damage, just as it is not the existence of a swimming pool that causes drowning.
If fair compensation is returned to the owners, then we have chosen to use force in a just way. It matters not if the pasture is abused, if fair compensation has been awarded to all who own and have lost from overgrazing. The cost itself, if it reflects the intensity of use and loss of future utility, will right destructive behavior and preserve what is commonly owned and award to the owners, all of us, what is due.
When there is scarcity, there is always force, at least as long as humans resort to force to decide distribution of scarce resources. How then does private property come into play? Can this be a "sound" argument for the "enclosure" of the commons?
Private property and the necessary enclosure that is a result are completely unrelated to the central issue. It is compensation that is the dominant factor. Any resource that is held in common must be compensated for to those who originally own the resource. There can be no just "appropriation" without this occurring.
Whenever a common good is scarce, its appropriation to some must be accompanied by compensation to those who forfeited their use. This is the only just means to whatever end is reached. This is the only non-utilitarian approach. The commons must be compensated for to the common owners. Whenever compensation does not occur, the resource has been socialized. Its value has been claimed by the few to the detriment of all.
There is less force needed to gather compensation for the commons to their owners than it takes to exclude their owners from use without due compensation. Certainly, we would give greater respect to property rights if we are compensated for our non-use of those goods, such as land and resources, that have not been produced by any of us. The only alternative is "forceful" appropriation done by the collective. Whether it is done before or after "private property" is recognized does not change the nature of the act. We do not create a free market from our resources; the free market is based "on" our resources.
Does "homesteading" solve the dilemma? Homesteading is basically a sound practice with a major exception. The homesteading principle, that one may settle unused land and "own" it by laboring upon it, is based on the assumption that no one "owns" the land, yet a mysterious process involving our labor can be adhered to and the land miraculously becomes "owned".
What this system must recognize to be logical is that by its own definition anyone can "own" this land, if they follow the conditions, mixing one’s labor with the land. If that is the case, then all humans have the "potential" to own all land.
Arguments have gone on at length on the precise or even imprecise definition of "mixing one’s labor with the land". This argument is completely irrelevant. For, every human on the earth who hasn’t lived off another’s labor output has "mixed their labor with the land". Any human who cannot mix their labor with the land will die of starvation, unless they can convince someone else to labor for them, and that is unlikely without sufficient force that would and often does, overrule any ownership.
We are left with the original choice: we can accept the "Tragedy of the Commons", where the "collective" uses their dominant force to advantage those who they wish to advantage and disadvantage all others or we can choose compensation for the use of the "commons".
It requires force to institute either system, believing otherwise is naïve. It requires the force of a monstrous State to appropriate common resources to its selected benefactors for little or no cost, just as it requires a monstrous State to claim socialized ownership of a land mass. There is not great difference between the two. The difference between Mao and Lincoln are only one of scale and benefactor. Lincoln restrained himself at only deeding 10% of the land mass to the corporate railroads, Mao had to deal with a third of the Chinese land mass.
Believe what you want, but there is no free market until this basic problem of appropriation of all that is not produced by humans and was here before us is solved. Before then, during and after, it will be force that determines the solution. The degree of force and whether it benefits all or a few is the only variable. .
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Bravo. Your addendum is dead on. It just strikes me as odd that this truth is anathema to everyone, libertarians, socialists, conservatives, liberals included.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
