Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)

Post by mannykannot » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:20 AM UTC

frabbit wrote: post #29

mannykannot wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an argument that probably could, and therefore should, be made without making it dependent on the tragedy of the commons being a fallacy.

Except that the critique of Hardin is that he actually inverts the cause of the tragedy. It should be "Tragedy of the Enclosures". The article argues that this inversion is what has allowed people to ignore the huge chicken which is just now coming home to various roosts.

The tragedy of the commons does not justify either the enclosures or its modern incarnation. That is the fallacy that the author should take on. To attack, instead, the notion of tragedy of the commons itself risks losing the argument on the grounds that, if you look more thoroughly, there is actually better evidence for it than the author is claiming.

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:56 AM UTC

skummetmaelk wrote: post #27

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need world government with real power in order to solve this problem, just as national government has solved it for more local issues. The problem with world government is that you would need sign on by literally everyone, permanently. As soon as you had a serious disagreement and tried to enforce it against a sufficiently powerful country without their consent, we would have at best the dissolution of the world…

> If most of Europe and China got together and signed an agreement to all put sanctions on any country that didn't meet a per-capita carbon emissions target, that would be the end of it. Which would be the beginning of world government. Agreed upon rules with clear consequences for breaking them. Right now there are consequences for doing what the major players do not like, but the rules are not written down beforeha…

> Which would be the beginning of world government.

No it wouldn't, because it isn't a government, it's a relationship between fully independent states.

If a federal judge orders an Alabama school superintendent to do something as a matter of federal law, that superintendent is either going to do that thing or be arrested by the feds, and nobody is going to stop them. That's what a government looks like.

If the EU tells the US to cut carbon emissions or face sanctions and Donald Trump tells them to piss off, nobody is going to arrest Donald Trump and anybody who tries to is going to be met with force. Europe can then impose the sanctions, and the US can either give in or suffer the ramifications as a country, but at no point is anyone who refuses to comply going to be held personally responsible by an external governing body.

Moreover, each government's tools against the others are roughly symmetrical. If the EU wants to put sanctions on the US they can, but the US can just respond in kind. That hurts both of them and they both know it, so (absent corruption) they won't do it unless it's something sufficiently important. Which means you don't get the insane policies like we have in the US where the feds start micromanaging everything just because they can get away with it.

Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)

Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)