@aurochs

"Ostrom illustrated what anthropologists and people in stateless societies have known for generations: people are perfectly capable of working out rules to sustainably manage shared resources. In her book, Ostrom detailed one common pasture in Switzerland that has been in continuous use since the 1500s. She also described shared fishing rights in Turkey, shared agricultural and forest land in Japan, and shared irrigation systems in Spain. There is no tragedy.

This is not to say that establishing and maintaining systems of shared property is trivially easy or inevitably successful. There will be times when these systems fail. There are probably some scales at which coordination becomes impossible, such as at the level of the atmosphere or the world's oceans at a global scale. Commons management takes constant work and is often very hard. But over-exploitation is not logically and inexorably inevitable. There is no tragedy."

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/109449321659418326

@PsyChuan

@aurochs

"Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."

— Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Hardin himself backed-off his original definition because Elinor Ostrom proved it was wrong with her book Governing the Commons.

He did not use your argument that she "narrowed down" his definition, rather he "eventually revised his argument, in light of Ostrom's work, explaining that what he should have called it was the tragedy of *unmanaged* commons..."

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/109449321659418326

see also:
https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain

Examples proving Hardin wrong:

Rundale System of Common Property
https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110219111305684330

humans all over the globe have been actively managing our environment successfully and sustainably for many millennia
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807

(continued)
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431255161180652

@PsyChuan

@aurochs

When you say "the tragedy of the commons" is real, you're saying that commons ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, result in tragedy. I already posted a large collection of examples that prove this is false.

(Unless you're redefining the phrase, in which case you can pretend it means whatever you want ‍️)

When you say "the tragedy of the commons" is real, you're also saying that the only solution to the tragedy is privatization and state control, which Hardin insidiously referred to as "mutual coercion" but which is actually what has caused the disastrous mess we're in now.

As long as states exist and capital rules the planet we will not see a way out of this mess actually happen.

@PsyChuan

@aurochs

"I know what the tragedy of the commons is..."

No, you clearly don't.

"The solution for that is governmental regulation and control."

No, that's a fantasy. You'll never see that come to pass. State is a big part of the problem and that cannot be changed.

You should explore this thread:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113427830249968598

@PsyChuan

@aurochs

You're right about "the capitalist solution", but I think you misunderstand what the "tragedy of the commons" actually was. As put forward by Hardin, it was the claim that commons *inevitably* failed. Not just that shit happens.

That's bullshit, and I back that up with this:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431315039344882

and this:
https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain

and this:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807

and this:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113432448395719328

@PsyChuan

@edwiebe

It's capitalism, colonialism, state, hierarchy.

@PsyChuan

@marjolica

How can that be a "clear example" in a world ruled by capital?

@PsyChuan

@UkeleleEric

No. Capitalism is evil to the core, there is no baby in the bathwater. Imagine saying back in the day: "Personally, I would probably prefer chattel slavery as we have it now to be dismantled, but there doesn't appear to be enough people to agree with me, so we might have to work on the legal and practical regulation."

It's the same with capitalism. Don't even consider compromising with it!

Besides, state is also evil to the core. You can't use it against capitalism, and the rule of law is bullshit.

@witchescauldron @PsyChuan