This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The State Is A Tragedy Of The Commons
Submitted by Michael Suede of Fascist Soup
The State Is A Tragedy Of The Commons
Some of you may already be familiar with the economic law called “the
tragedy of the commons,” but for those of you who are not, I shall
explain it to you.
The tragedy of the commons
refers to a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple
individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own
self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even
when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this
to happen.
For example: If two cattle farmers share a common plot of land
between them, and neither can exclude the other from grazing their
cattle on it, both farmers have a natural incentive to graze their cows
as much as possible on the common land, there by destroying it quickly,
rather than conserving it for future use.
Another example would be hunting deer on common land. If several
hunters share a common hunting ground, and none can exclude the others
from hunting there, each hunter has an incentive to shoot as many deer
as he can before the stock of deer is depleted by the other hunters.
The clear lesson to be learned from this economic law is that
common resources, which everyone has access to, lead to rapid depletion
and destruction of those resources as the public attempts to horde as
much as they can before the resources are depleted.
I would argue the tragedy of the commons receives far too little
attention as a rational explanation for the cancerous expansion of the
State. For what is the State other than people looting each others’
private property in a zero sum game of resource redistribution? The
tragedy of the commons gives us a rational basis for the
consistent and constant expansion of the coercively funded democratic
State and why that expansion always leads to the destruction of society.
Alexander Tytler once wrote, “A democracy cannot exist
as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of
voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public
treasury.” I would argue Tytler had the cause and effect inverted in his statement. Modern democracies are specifically created for the express purpose of establishing common property across an entire State region.
To be logically consistent, Tytler’s statement should be rewritten as: The modern democratic State cannot exist without the largess of the public treasury.
It is important to note that common property is not the same as
publicly accessible property. A rancher can regulate the hunting that
takes place on his own land. Often ranchers will allow hunters access
to their land for a nominal fee and under certain terms. It is in the
rancher’s best interest to allow only enough hunting on his property so
as not to deplete the stock of wildlife, and the rancher can regulate
this by varying the rate he charges or the number of people he allows to
hunt his land.
While modern democracies claim eminent domain across all of the land,
labor, and resources in a given region, the most typical form of
private property they assert control over is the trade intermediary that
society uses in barter with each other.
When the money of a society is defined as common property by a State,
nearly EVERYTHING in that society necessarily becomes common property,
since nearly everything in society has a price.
If each individual actor in a society perceives that his own property
(money) is not really his own, but is common property, he will
rationally act to horde as many resources (physical things) for himself,
through the political system, as he possibly can before the common pool
of resources is depleted. Under a common property money, this drive
by the public to expand State power becomes instinctive and rational.
When the democratic State has the ability to take as much money as it
likes from whomever it choses, it will necessarily and eventually turn
the entirety of society against itself. It will foster, through the
public trough, a mad rush for each political interest group to acquire
as many resources as they can, as quickly as they can, before those
resources are expropriated by other interest groups. Of course, the
largest and most powerful interest groups will always get the biggest
slice of the pie.
The tragedy of the commons explicitly shows us that modern democratic
States are ALWAYS unsustainable if they are allowed to use violence
against the population in order to make the money supply of the
population common property.
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did
not commit suicide. –John Adams (1814)
These insights give us a clear picture as to what a truly sustainable democratic government must look like:
1. A sustainable democratic government must never be allowed to assert control over the money a society choses to use.
2. A sustainable democratic government must never be allowed to take
property by force, either through taxation or eminent domain.
Any democratic government that is permitted the use of eminent
domain, the forced confiscation of wealth through taxation, or monopoly
control over the issuance of currency, will always result in the
self-destruction of the given society.
It is interesting to note that the same is not true of other types of
State systems! For example, a monarchy may be able to be to retain a
monopoly over the issuance of currency and act as the final arbiter of
all disputes, along with violently taxing the public, but because the
King is able to prevent the public from “feeding at the public trough,”
that nation State may be able to exist for extremely long periods of
relative stability.
Of course, I’m not arguing in favor of a monarchy. But it is
important to note, since this explains why some monarchies were able to
exist in relative stability for long periods of time.
The ultimate truth of the matter is that democratic rule does not
require a voting booth and necessarily shouldn’t have one.
If we make
the assumption that no sustainable democratic government can be allowed
to wage violence against the innocent in order to expropriate property,
then we must consider how such a government is to be funded.
If it is to be funded voluntarily, then it is clear that public
voting is automatically accomplished by the consumers of that government
when they purchase its services.
What might such a democratic government look like?
Austrian Economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe provides us some answers:
»
- 10492 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
No you/we didn't fail, the system failed. 'We' didn't have anything to do with it! Because the system called 'democratic Govt" is not designed to include us, only once every 4 years do we get a say. Between those 4 years the system runs by itself, un-checked.
The Constitution is a piece of paper. That's it.
the problem is the system, not paperwork
Well, the British didn't need eminent domain to build -- privately -- a nationwide rail system that was the envy of the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail#History
And the Constitution?
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-democracy-and-its-contradict...
"These insights give us a clear picture as to what a truly sustainable democratic government must look like:"
And that is the basic point, isn't it: wtf (... er ... win the future) is it where a 'democratic government' can do shit?
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html
and Ol' Ben had the right of it.
Of course, he had the right of it in many other respects, such as e.g.:
http://www.autoboardz.com/Ben-Franklin-praise-older-women-ftopict192294....
"don't tell, don't swell, and they're grateful as hell"
Kinda' interstting to think that Ol' Ben was such a swordsman. Gotta' wonder about the new generation and their frustrations etc.
- Ned
Democracies never last, they are the bane of the populace.
The Majority rules, and it turns into pure Anarchy before its end.
Let's watch WI do its thing--I'm wondering if the new Gov is Tommy Thompson (sp) or nay
- Ned
I see nothing predictable about this situation. Except that it will make fools of most of the predictors.
Gene Sharp may have a way out of our current tyranny. He did a lot more than observe in Tiannenmen Square, from my recollection of conversations with the original student organizers...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeast/17sharp.html?em&exprod=myyahoo
buckle up y'all. we're in for a long ride.
Darwin is just warming up!
The problem is that most of total money supply worldwide aren't created by governments but by corporations.
The problem is that most of total money supply worldwide aren't created by governments but by corporations.
Yeah, right; I'm going to accept Bank of America's money because it can create it ex nihilo, not because its ability to do so is the law of the land:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html
"because the King is able to prevent the public from “feeding at the public trough,” that nation State may be able to exist for extremely long periods of relative stability."
That's a load of bullshit sophistry.
The author needs to read some history.
The tragedy of the commons is that they were stolen and privatized by whores for whores.
Here we are sandwiched between neighbors north &
south that aint packin': this is the only advantage
but necessary ingredient to transition into a private
law society. And since no relationshp exists between
government and citizens, just a one sided corrupt
state that changes the rules mid-game......
we just have to kill the monopoly And get back into
the game.
The constitution must be the pillar of democracy and without it Adams will always be proved right.
The US has been let down by judicial activists and cronies and imperialists starting with Teddy Roosevelt. The executive and judiciary is captured by shill money and racketeering in academia, and the cronies buy the political class and their nominations.
The constitution must recognise other sovereign constitutions as being preminent within their jurisdictions in order to defeat jurisdictional imperialism. cronies buy the political class.
The constitution did not recognise the disease that is 2 party politics and this one part each of red and blue returns imperial purple and the shills and cronies hang out at court taking their rent as ever they did. This is the natural order for them.
Ron Paulism needs to become a mass movement or the world surrenders to Rockefeller's CFR and the crony elite's idea of a shill filtered imperial meritocracy. If they drop the gold out of the otherwise sound money story and keep all else
Read John Lott's essay "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" It shows that federal spending during peacetime averaged about three percent of GDP until 1920, then grew steadily to 35% today. The same happened to state budgets in whichever year they first allowed women to vote.
The reason is simple. Men want to provide for their own wives and children, and want the government to leave them alone. Women want the government to provide for every needy person, regardless of why they're needy. A social safety net frees women to mate with strong, sexy barbarians instead of having to marry an ordinary guy with a steady job.
With no access to fertile women, civilized men either sink into despair, quit their jobs and move to Thailand, or join the barbarians. Without the protection civilized men used to provide, single women became easy prey, and their feminist utopia collapses.
yep...the entire civil rights "enfranchisement" movement has been suicidal. Most american women are no longer marriageable. Go on a dating site and see how many early 30s divorcees with one kid there are. With the safety net that diversity mandates and government spending provide, why would a woman want to put up with flaws when there are barbarians out there and the bills are paid?
We don't trust children to make critical decisions but we trust people with the intelligence and mentality of children to vote. Women are by and large insufficiently logical as a matter of millions of years of evolution to wield a vote properly. Were a logic or intelligence test a prerequisite of voting, one would see disproportionately many white and asian men with a vote, and far fewer of all other classes
the dumbest part of the voting system IS the voting system
anybody that turns up to vote is dumb bordering on insane, male or female
it's got to be the next most stupid thing to a Lemming stampede
Don't Vote and keep your sanity and sense of reality intact
yo trav7s
that ought to stir up a few folks in here
i follow the Jeffersonian precept that voting is an earned privilege, and only those with a notable stake in the result have the right to earn that vote.
the correct test is whether or not you understand (and can articulate) the trade-offs inherent to the particular issue. you must be know the price-tag, and be able to argue the 'other side', regardless of whether or not you agree. of course, the arbiter of the test arguably determines the result...
it would be an interesting study to simulate such a test and see who (demographically) did get to vote. as un-PC as it is, there is an answer to your assertion.
having said all that, i would bet that even if folks 'know', they still vote 'stupid', but that's just me...
There are some slight truths there. However women are still slightly more likely to.vote their class rather than their communist maternal instincts (to each according to his need). As long as there are rewards for illegitimate children and as long as the least responsible and least productive have the most kids we are heading.for an idiocracy. In India and other places the few people who have bastards live lives of extreme poverty and suffering. These examples of bad behavior and the consequences serve to scare most people into behaving properly. However non-trashy women in their late twenties and early thirties usually have had an epiphany at some point and do become.attracted to that stable provider with a good income, since the barbarian whose kid they had is too irresponsible to provide child support. Most women dont want to live like welfare trailer trash.
I did not even bother to read past your first example, which is utterly, totally, massively, blatantly wrong.
Anyone who believes it is better to destroy their entire resource of food for the future, just so he'll have a little more rotting food than his neighbor in the short run... is completely, massively, totally, utterly insane... not to mention utterly stupid.
This kind of behavior only happens when a culture becomes so totally dominated by predators and predatory behavior that rational people realize they have no hope for the future because the predators have totally taken over everything... as they have most certainly have today in the USSA.
The appropriate story to tell is the fundamental story of mankind... which is predator versus producer.
In a world of 100,000 humans... and maybe up to 1,000,000 humans, a sufficient quantity of naturally occurring and naturally renewing resources (water, eatable plants and animals, caves, etc) are available to support human life. Thus these humans can be predators on nature and survive. In other words, they can just wander around, find, grab and consume what they need to survive. Therefore, in this situation, humans can adopt an ethics of predatory behavior, which is what almost animals do.
In a world of millions of humans, much less billions of humans, this kind of behavior and ethics cannot work. Therefore humans must adopt an ethics of production, because only productive behavior can create a sufficient quantity of goods to support that number of humans. Only by planting seeds rationally and methodically, routing water rationally and methodically, and taking endless other rational and methodical productive actions can humans survive at population levels over ~1 million.
And this is what core, fundamental laws codify... the ethics of productive behavior. They say "he who produces goods, gets to consume those goods, or trade them for goods from other producers and consume those instead. Or more precisely these laws state:
Ethics is the state in which every human enjoys/bears/suffers ALL the consequences of his own actions, and enjoys/bears/suffers ZERO consequences of the actions of other humans. Which means, produce or die.
However, nothing forces any individual human to be a rational, benevolent, methodical producer rather than a craven, malevolent, diabolical, deceitful predator. So predators must be captured and eliminated, or locked up until they decide to produce and compensate their victims.
However, what happens when a bunch of predators band together and take over that "fictitious entity" commonly known as "government"? Predators DBA "government".
And so we have the USSA of today. First, production became a less efficient way to gain goods than predatory behavior. This attracted the most craven opportunistic slime in society become increasingly predatory and less productive... until eventually they became essentially pure predators. This is happened in spades in the USSA with the total domination of politics and government by "fictitious entities", which are simply fictional cover for "predators DBA government or [mega]-corporation".
Today, just about everyone who wants to be a producer understands that the moment he produces anything of value, the vultures will appear in droves and take most or all his production. What remains may not even be sufficient to repay his expenses to produce. Even if it barely is, his incentive to risk and produce is destroyed, so the predator will never again take significant risks in order to do "great things". Why bother to spend savings he needs to survive in the predatory years to come?
And so the cycle completes. Today, producers are not so much "shrugging on principle" as giving up because they're tired of being screwed and having little or no hope to achieve much by productive activity - but lots to lose.
The answer to the destruction of America (and modern civilization itself) is not "tragedy of the commons" (which is absurd as described), or other non-fundamentals.
The answer is predator versus producer. Today, the predators have all the power and marbles, and the producers are so confused they fail to understand the nature of their situation.
great read - best in a good while.
but i stand here, *thinking* i'm a producer, *knowing* i'm not a predator (of the core sort you describe), and i'm definitely confused.
maybe less-so for your efforts. tnx
All Capitalists must be predators.
That's how they get more Capital. There's literally no other way.
Did you see the word "produce" or "producer" or "production" anywhere in my post? Nah, guess not.
I don't suppose anyone even realizes that production is how people can and should accumulate wealth. That was the main point, yet you totally didn't notice. Wow!
bravo.
generally it's those with kids that eventually 'get' parenting.
and those who actually produce, that 'get' real capitalism (and not the MSM's re-named fascism our culture generally practices today).
such is the price/return value of experience. i suppose in some ways you can't fault folks who have never been able/allowed to actually produce, for having their silly opinions. it's often the best they can do.
after a few minutes of relevant conversation, it's clear who is who.
(more farmers w/ guns, i say)
Writing a page long response to an article that you only bothered to read the first paragraph on makes you look foolish.
Further, saying the tragedy of the commons does't really exist is like arguing that gravity really doesn't exist.
We can demonstrate emperically that it is so.
The point wasn't whether there are instances of behavior that could be classified as "tragedy of the commons". Sure there are. The point was whether the "tragedy of the commons" is in any way central to the collapse of civilization we see today. If you identify minor ripples but identify them as the fundamental issue, then you are likely to invest all your time and energy fighting a battle that has little impact on the overall problem we all care about. That's the point. That plus the fact that the example given was idiotic in the extreme.
Almost everything the guy in the video is correct or reasonable, but he says little to nothing about how to prevent predators from taking over any fictitious entity, including so-called "private law societies" and "private arbitration groups". So even though most of what he says is quite true, he leaves out the practical question that must be solved to ever have a chance to create any real world benevolent civilization.
"The answer is predator versus producer."
Amen!
Must read: http://www.ascolibooks.com/vera-verba/production_versus_plunder.html
Henry Geroge had a remedy for the tragedy of the commons in his book "Progress and Poverty". His remedy was to impliment the property tax and remove all other taxation to free up labor and capital to be most productive. Common Resources would pay tax based on auction. Highest bidder obtains the rights to exploit the land and the community is thus funded.
"Of course, I’m not arguing in favor of a monarchy. But it is important to note, since this explains why some monarchies were able to exist in relative stability for long periods of time."
-------
It would be interesting to compare, over time, the value-maintaining-stability of monarchical currencies to the U.S. dollar and gold.