Ignore whether or not we actually agree with the tragedy of the commons for a moment.
If free land anyone is allowed to use is inevitably going to result in individuals acting in their own self interest depleting the resources of the fields and ultimately bringing about collective ruin… Does that not apply to like… All of capitalism? On the planet?
The capitalists are incentivised to act in their individual interests, and they will do so to the ultimate collective ruin of the entire planet.
That is the tragedy of the commons expanded to an international scale, and if one believes in the tragedy of the commons then one must also believe in the other.
The commons must be centrally controlled and managed in the collective interest.
The market must be centrally controlled and managed in the collective interest.
Yes, the entire premise is basically “imagine everyone is an amoral, profit driven capitalist kleptocratic eager to pillage and burn, therefore we must ensure that everything is up for sale to specifically those amoral, profit drive capitalist kleptocrats for… reasons. Yes this is coherent and smart please listen to me.”
And of course in reality, the tragedy of the commons was caused by enclosure and capitalist encroachment that communities were prevented from using their traditional “just kick the shit out of someone who’s wrecking up the place if they don’t stop when you tell them to” methods to defend themselves against. Communal ownership leads to better and more responsible stewardship than commodifying everything for rich bastards to buy, exploit, and despoil.
Actually even when you can’t punish people directly there have been examples of some being managed collectively over long times.
Elenore Ostrom studied some, one example is
CW: Killing, mutilation, carnism
People fishing lobsters and clipping their tails to indicate they are carrying eggs or otherwise designated to maintain the population. I can’t remember the precise details.
no, when capitalism does it it’s called an “externality” and it’s different because something
In fact, the tragedy of the commons only happens when there is an external market able to absorb all produce. After all, the feudal exploitation is limited by the size of the lord’s stomach.
This is an interesting thought. In neoclassical production theory oil is treated simply as scarce input capital, not as a limited natural resource (as the pasture is considered in the tragedy). If we consider oil as being the common pool resource in our capitalism/free market model, when oil runs out what happens to the market when there are no longer any goods being produced that can go into the supply side?
Further thought to consider… is oil managed by the free market on a global scale today? Is it state run? Or cartel managed? The tragedy is resolved through cooperative resource management. I wonder what the world would look like if oil was cooperatively managed on a global scale? I don’t mean that there is a global government structure in place that centrally manages oil, I mean a type of cooperative, polycentric governance system?
Or cartel managed?
Cartel, generally speaking. The OPEC+ alliance has intentionally withheld oil to inflate prices previously.
You mention oil but it’s also extremely true for deforestation, fishing, farming and several other things. Including water too actually.
You mention oil but it’s also extremely true for deforestation, fishing, farming and several other things. Including water too actually.
It is! It seems as though our cut-throat capitalism or our central government models aren’t really the best options for those life essential common pool resources. Can we try the third option next maybe, cooperation?
Not sure how deep into the tragedy you are but if you are unfamiliar, I’d recommend reading about Elinor_Ostrom’s work in cooperative resource management.
The argument is supposed to be that it would be irrational to wreck or cannibalize your private property for short-term gain when doing so would eventually leave you without productive property. That kind of behavior is only stopped to happen (according to The Economists) with property held in common, as nobody has an incentive to spend resources safeguarding the future of something that isn’t their sole demanse. As we know, capitalism is totally rational and not at all preoccupied with short term gains at the cost of long term destruction, so this has to be right!
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise?
Yes. Liberals would have you believe it does not, but it does.
The logic goes that the individuals who use their share more efficiently will make more profits and will outcompete those who don’t make good use of resources. That’s the general principle behind the invisible hand of the free market, it will promote the more profitable solutions precisely to prevent the pitfalls of the tragedy of the commons.
Then the flaw becomes the supposition that profit equals good use of resources. I think it’s better to attack that resulting side of the argument than the basis; people would understand your criticism of the market to equate the capitalist mode of production with a more primitive one. That does away with the nuance that capitalism has brought innovations with it that have opened up new productive capacity. Marxism isn’t anti-capitalism.
That’s impossible when harming the environment is always going to be cheaper and more profitable than being good to it which takes extra effort.
My general point here is that all the supporters of capitalism tend to believe in the tragedy of the commons and even use it as argument against anything being collective, but all capitalism has truly done is expand the tragedy in scale from a field to the planet.
If they believe in this, they categorically must admit that the commons must be taken away from the capitalists. Using their own logic.
The Tragedy of the commons isn’t arguing about maximizing profit. It’s an argument for the establishment of private property laws to prevent “free riders” from spoiling the commons from overuse, which they think is somehow exclusive to how collective societies work.
Edit: The problem they face is that individuals don’t suddenly have perfect willpower and knowledge to conserve resources just because they own something and the measuring of resource use and enforcement of rationing sometimes costs more resources than the resources being depleted which creates even more inefficiencies (policing buses to enforce toll payment rather than taxation funding buses, etc.).
It’s always proyection
