Stockholm whiteboard seminars: Elinor Ostrom explains how people can use natural resources in a sustainable way based on the diversity that exists in the world.
This explanation fits the pastoralists traditional management of the common resources through the traditional institutions that had the ability to adapt to the challenges of pasture and water resources in the arid and semi-arid lands of the horn of Africa. The Borana traditional pastoralism was once the sustainable land use in the arid lands of eastern Africa, the success is rooted in the robust indigenous knowledge and customary management institutions. Mr. Matthew Molu galma
@kobe24 She isn't advocating anything but showing with her research that common ownership is not that much of a problem as "the tragedy of commons" suggested, and that local communities usually have more information about what concerns them than larger entities like governments or global organisations, thus local communities will make better local decisions in general than governments/global organisations/etc. She is NOT saying common ownership leads to over-use.
The most revolutionary thinker of our times. Common Capitalism organized based on the Ostrom Parameters is the path to thriving at the end of the Holocene.
Starts of weak but gets good. Also, the overall point is very important. I believe the aside on trust is broadly applicable to any collective endevor without coercsion.
@otacon451 It is my understanding that a group of anarcho capitalists could, through voluntarism, join land resources and manage it as a commons. perhaps?
@vicky99nicky No, it's an equilibrium. If you operate at that point, then your level of extraction just equals the level of resource renewal... hence the resource population is in a steady-state or "equilibrium." If you operate beyond this point, you will push the resource population further and further down, and if you operate below it the population will continue to grow and grow. Note that equilibrium in this case is not equal to "point at which people actually operate."
Collectivism is not central planning. Planning is not central planning. Central planning, however, has done more good than the profit motive will ever do.
libertarian socialism...particularly Mutualist economcs, advocates private property in the form of Cooperatives. There is no corporate or state owned property. That is what Otacon451 is saying.
her research certainly evaluates libertarian socialist principles. i cant imagine anarcho capitalist folks advocating any form of commons, theyre all for individualist sovereign management over resources afaik
You can have kids. Just make sure they don't consume at a westerner's typical levels. Teach them to be conservative with natural resources and the natural world. i. e. no shopping for shopping's sake.
It would be easier for you to go live in North Korea, to enjoy your planned economy, while the rest of us people with basic math skills and knowledge about scarcity and choices (economy) enjoy the benefits of market mechanisms. That way, you can live out your ideological centrally planned fantasy, while the rest of us deal with real life where we know knowledge problems and economic calculation problems happen to exist.
yups. i think her approach gives a very large role to private, non-profit, community-oriented organizations - civic organizations or "local associations," if you will. it's not only "the state" that has destructive affects, in her view, but also "roving bandits" - and her description of what "roving bandits" are fits very closely with multinational corporations. she's neither against state, business, nor market, but rather against any of those three ruling supreme.
I should also mention that in many cases it isn't the locals harvesting beyond sustainability, but foreigners instead. Specifically illegal fishing by Koreans off the coast of Sierra Leone. Now they're by no means not alone in doing so, just the locals do not possess the technology required in most cases. In fact Al Jazeera English did an exposé that busted some of the fishing trawlers.
not quite that either. she's saying that Hardin was wrong to say that all private property or all government control were the only ways to manage the "ToC"
While local knowledge is important her using the Masai as an example of good stewardship of the land was poorly chosen. Various areas with lions were drastically reduced due to the locals poisoning them. It has been shown that many species require intervention by the state to survive due to locals over-harvesting lumber, over-fishing, and hunting beyond sustainability. Sooner or later it'll actually be more common to shoot poachers simply to preserve species. cont.
It is contradiction to talk about sustainable development and we are consumers every resources available in the developing countries, even not paying Taxes.
This is so simple it almost seems an infantile argument at this point, but one needs only point to North Korea, and compare it to the mixed economies of the rest of the world, to demonstrate the clusterfuck that is central planning.
Nice strawman, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. Unfortunately for you, I'm a Ricardian socialist (with elements of mutualism, cooporatism and distributism).
I take your insults as a sign that you have taken the point, failed to formulate a rebuttal and deep down know you're wrong, which is why you have to resort to emotional tactics.
