On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:29:10AM -0400, Frederica Clare wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:02 PM > Subject: The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip > [According to Hardin]] > Inevitably, "the rational herdsman concludes that the > only sensible course for him to pursue is to add > another animal to his herd." But every "rational > herdsman" will do the same thing, so the commons is > soon overstocked and overgrazed to the point where it > supports no animals at all. This, arguably, is simply an extension of the well entrenched competition narrative fostered by the robber barons of the early industrial age. In the milieu to which Hardin contributed this gem it was a fairly non-controversial argument, save that it pinked the sensibilities of leftist academics, as I understand the time.
snip > Friedrich Engels' account of the "mark," the form taken > by commons-based communities in parts of pre-capitalist > Germany: > > "The use of arable and meadowlands was under the > supervision and direction of the community ... > > "Just as the share of each member in so much of the > mark as was distributed was of equal size, so was his > share also in the use of the 'common mark.' The nature > of this use was determined by the members of the > community as a whole. ... > > "At fixed times and, if necessary, more frequently, > they met in the open air to discuss the affairs of the > mark and to sit in judgment upon breaches of > regulations and disputes concerning the mark." (Engels > 1892) At the time Hardin offered us TotC it was sufficient to invoke Engels and find one had inescapably polarized the conversation. Hardin's essay gave folks "on the right" a seemingly solid argument against communalism/commonism/communism. That his essay begged the question of what a rational actor would do is beside the point. This wasn't science, it was veiled polemics. The problem was, and remains, that with great names like Stalin and Mao and Hitler talking up socialism even folks who think such ideals look good on paper are hard pressed to maintain our committment to those ideals in the face of the atrocities committed in the name of those ideals by these "great men of history". The best the left and others interested in communal ideals could do was play the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and hope the monsters would just go away. This is a thread of Cooperation Studies which is much on my mind, and for which I have no traction, no footing, no hooks, the dark side of cooperation, when cooperators do evil, and the propensity for evil in concentrated action, the potential for loss of individual freedom, dignity, meaning in the ocean of common action. I look forward to continuing to explore these threads with y'all. rl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CooperationCommons" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CooperationCommons?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
