No video :(

What is the Tragedy of the Commons?

Подписаться 295 тыс.

Просмотров 397 тыс.

50% 1

Unfortunately, there are strong incentives for people to exploit these resources when they are held in common by everyone. As Prof. Sean Mulholland at Stonehill College explains, the 'tragedy of the commons' occurs when individuals acting independently end up depleting shared resources, such as fisheries or pastureland. Prof. Mulholland discusses two potential solutions to this problem: public ownership, where the property is owned and administered by the government, and private ownership. He discusses the strengths and weaknesses to each approach and some key considerations for determining which institutions best protect useful resources.
SUBSCRIBE:
bit.ly/1HVAtKP
FOLLOW US:
- Website: www.learnliber...
- Facebook: / learnliberty
- Twitter: / learnliberty
- Google +: bit.ly/1hi66Zz
LEARN LIBERTY
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at bit.ly/1UleLbP

Опубликовано:

6 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 636

@hannahsandbananas 10 лет назад

Well thanks for helping me study what my prof made so difficult to understand!

@SleuthySloth 10 лет назад

Hey thanks, now I don't have to read the article I was assigned.

@gwlyons77 11 лет назад

It's "quite common" in areas that are already overtaken by western ideologies, yet it rarely (I can think of maybe Easter Island--and that's just a guess!) happens in areas where people live in relationship of the land, where they depend on the land to live. The "strong incentives" to exploit these lands only comes from Western ideologies and is a complete red herring.

@LearnLiberty 10 лет назад

Without *ownership*, resources die out. It really does become a tragedy! #economics #liberty #property #ownership #tragedyofthecommons

@bongobuddy 10 лет назад

I feel the need to specify that Without Responsible ownership, resources die out. that is all :)

@AlexDKennedy 10 лет назад

***** If by "feel anxiety" you mean "Experience higher rate of cancer due to unreasonably high levels of carcinogens being intentionally leaked into the water" Then yes... You are a bad person and police should arrest you... Preferably Randy Marsh-style.... Dragging you away while you scream "I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA!!"

@Dylanoakhill 10 лет назад

Public ownership is ownership too. Look at this rancher in Nevada who has refused for 20 years to pay the required cost of grazing his cattle on public land. It's freeloaders like him that are a problem when it comes to public ownership. If he wants to graze the land as his own private property then I guess he should BUY it.

@Dylanoakhill 10 лет назад

***** He didn't have to take from public land to "survive". His family had always paid their fees, then he suddenly decided not to. He's a thief, and now that he's been caught, he won't go peacefully. He ironically said "I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." (contradicting article 1 and 2 of his own state constitution which he claimed to adhere to.) I think some people would call that treason. This isn't a new idea. If anyone wants traditional american values, look at the constitution. "the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible states." US Supreme Court 1869.

@Dylanoakhill 10 лет назад

Janos Valentine I agree, we can't solve by making everything private. But in this case, he would still have to pay taxes on private land, taxes that pay for the goods and services he and all Americans depend on daily that we usually take for granted. I also think we can't catch every freeloader, but we could go for the ones who are real big time: a million dollars in back taxes, or a couple DVDs worth 20 bucks or something? I'm all for putting our good where it will do the most good.

@aj19bcx 12 лет назад

few people are moral, but many people know how to benefit themselves.

@corey5454 4 года назад

Is this video stating that if someone works for an organization that is under public or govt ownership and they find a way to innovate something within that company or organization then they won’t be able reap the benefits of the value of their innovation unless they’re under private ownership?

@Mablak200 11 лет назад

A. The current federal minimum is $7.25, but in addition, states impose their own minimum, Walmart isn't paying anywhere near twice what they have to. An average worker at Walmart starts at around $8, and only works up to the $10 range, (or if they'd started at about $9 the $12 range) over the course of 5 or more years. B. One study has shown it would only cost the average shopper an extra 46 cents per visit to reach a $12 minimum at Walmart, not much of a burden.

@cftytrthnbv 11 лет назад

I don't think he is saying you should privatize everything, just certain things. For example you might privatize a pond but you would have public ownership of something like a rainforest.

@jshanmpleystampie6968 9 лет назад

This is very helpful for my biology Final Exam!!

@ntnnot 10 лет назад

The presenter says in the end that after privatization the park ranger would receive 'a stream of value' and we see notes being handed/paid by visitors. Feels like reducing/simplifying value to simply money. Seems to me what he should have said, is that after privatization the park ranger would receive 'a stream of money'. He also points out that the park ranger doesn't receive a direct benefit out of making the innovation to reduce forest fires. And? What about indirect benefit of being able to preserve and continue enjoying the forests? That's not a good/good enough incentive?

@PanEtRosa 11 лет назад

This problem is why consensus is being increasingly adopted. It holds all the stakeholders accountable to the group and provides a level structure for negotiating right and need to access. C.T. Lawrence Butler's "Consensus for Cities" provides good models for scaling the process up, so that accountability and responsibility are not restricted to the immediate group. This way, an isolated group can be held accountable to worldwide stakeholders, i.e. no one could overconsume at others' expense.

@Wyattinmnk 11 лет назад

This method ensures that, whoever owns the land has in their own interest to have the land purposed towards the greatest and most useful end for the community. Economics is so much more than what you take it to be. We make choices, we have alternatives, and resources are scarce. We specialize and trade, and as a result, everything we own is essentially obtained through trade.

@Akelmn 11 лет назад

Sorry, I expressed myself the wrong way for the sake of being rhetorical. What was meant implicitly was that people tend to disregard problems until there is an immediate threat (which could have often been prevented or mitigated). I'll try to make an analogy: it's like leaving the oven on overnight and doing nothing until smoke starts coming out of the kitchen. It's like not turning off the tap until the water supply is low. I hope that sheds some light on what I meant.

@jackmcslay 11 лет назад

We have a limited time on earth, but companies don't. Whenever someone retires from a company, there will always be someone in their 20s worried about the future of the company.

@Wyattinmnk 11 лет назад

When you have alternative uses for things or alternate preferences, you can't make everyone happy; but, you can instead maximize happiness. I may not make those kids happy, but is it right to deprive the potentialy many more people who would want the mini golf center? Which is more valuable? How would you make this determination if not by the free market?

@SangoProductions213 12 лет назад

I was just about to comment on that. Government's original role in our Democracy was nothing more than to provide services that nothing else could do and make a profit (I.E. fix roads, or resolve forest fires). A private organization would have monetised the forest, either by industrialising it or preventing people from freely experiencing it (costing the viewers money, for example), because they DO suffer the cost of their actions.

@OllytheOl 11 лет назад

Exactly. It's about people being responsible and caring about the results of their actions, promoting a sense of community and shared custodianship. This isn't difficult to achieve - we are programmed to be that way. In fact it's in broken communities where this is lost. If people's own sense of local pride, morale and caretaking can be nurtured, there is no need to put in private management whose interest is not in the park directly, but in profit. That treats only the symptoms, not the cause.

@ParadoxPerspective 12 лет назад

The idea of privatization assumes maximum profit incentive. If I own the pond, and the pond is valuable because it has fish, then it is in my best interest to make sure that I fish sustainably, or else I will only profit for one periodical while the resource lasts. the same principle applies to real-world scenarios where the companies that log trees over vast scapes of land also plant trees because it is in their profit-motivated interests. But you're right, they could be bad businessmen.

@Wyattinmnk 11 лет назад

Second; if a businessman cannot support the preservation the park, because there are not enough customers (people willing to come and pay for the cost of that preservation), it SHOULD be abandoned/bulldozed and utilized in a different way. But, if someone else really likes that park, they can also purchase it and try to maintain it more effectively or even at their own expense.

@91UnclesRemuses 12 лет назад

Its not about perceiving value with a dollar sign, but with goods and services, the guard works there because he needs to eat, he needs a house and maybe a car, he has expenses to cover, and limited time to gain enough money to do so, if he isn't going to get rewarded for going out of his way in order to innovate, when he could have spent his time working to feed his family, then what incentive is there for him to do so?

@megbackus 11 лет назад

It all falls apart at 2:50 when money starts flying through the air from the presumed private owner to the worker. Worker productivity is always on the rise, but the increased profits their work creates are pocketed by the private owners, not passed on. See NY Times graphic from Jan 13, 2013 "anemic american paychecks". Also worth noting that Garret Hardin has indicated that his original essay should have been titled ‘The Tragedy of the /Unmanaged/ Commons’

@Morocco_Mo 12 лет назад

Agreed with the top two comments, there are people out there who care about the community and will create something that will benefit themself and others around him simply because it's going to better everyone's lives in the future.

@OllytheOl 11 лет назад

Why not? it's a forum to speak to the community at large. Some might agree, or be enlightened, or engage in debate. What's wrong with that?

@Parpyduck 11 лет назад

Nobody takes into account the greed factor. We have a finite time on earth and some of us realize that we don't care what happens after we croak. Cash in now and live large! Let your successor deal with the scorched earth you've left him! It applies to politics, business, and all walks of life. We celebrate these people because we equate wealth to merit. Perversely, the public would largely admire the owner who clearcut the Amazon in exchange for more wealth than he could spend in his lifetime.

@stephenbailey9969 4 года назад

This is a thought experiment where the outcome was ideologically decided beforehand. History from medieval to modern time shows us that people are capable of consensus building and cooperation in the use of 'common' resources, as long as the decision making was most local where the stakeholders were intimately connected to those resources. When decision making is distant among a managerial elite (be it a public or privately owned resource) then the tendency is to overuse or mismanage the resource for short term gain (monetary or political).

@an.unarmed.civilian 12 лет назад

You implied it. Though that was never my argument in the first place. You cannot benefit via a patent from innovation that cannot be transported or distributed to other parties; or at very least visited by people (like a park or something).

@druidwolf11 11 лет назад

You’re absolutely right, I would profit. I am an advocate for a “Resource Based Economy” so I sometimes lose sight of the current reality that money is still motivates of people.

@Tamutu-1 9 лет назад

Wouldn't a govt. simply purchase it from the innovator? Instead of invest his time in a product and expect a pay? and if a privatized forest is poorly managed and results in fires or pollution, society bares major costs, but govt. represents the votes which means you'll see a forest managed in an appropriate manner, including the incurring of that innovative fire fighter machine.

@sympatheticdog123 12 лет назад

it is not a automatic update, you would need to refresh the page. Now if after that it did not change then it is suspicious.

@Wyattinmnk 11 лет назад

In my neighborhood there is a Home Owner's Association that maintains several paths and parks. Not every community member values them equally. They are vandalized and treated very poorly some of the community members. But none of them bear much of the costs for their actions. So even though they benefit from the maintenance and the quality of the paths and parks, they still treat them poorly.

@gben82 11 лет назад

True. I empathize with that, which is why I'm not hardcore Libertarian like I used to be Still, using bold political action and the force of government is not the (primary) answer to these problems. It must start with individuals. If you see a need not being met, then fulfill it (if you can). We need to be concerned, in the long-term, for society's well being--so what's the best way to do that? Vote, sit back idly, and use government to force people's hand, or be (locally) proactive today?

@Mirrormaxwellthe3rd 11 лет назад

the cow grazing example is the traditional example used to explain the tragedy of the commons, and the reason it doesn't happen in the real world is because it's an example of a problem that we solve by privatizing the field. In general privatizing a commons is a better idea then government ownership and management of the commons. The interesting tragedy of the commons examples are things like over-fishing, where it's prohibitively expensive to enforce private property rights.

@OllytheOl 11 лет назад

My point is that it is companies that act this way, like in your example, not people. Do people regularly push to front of the bus queue, in order to get the best seat, out of self interest, or to ensure that no one else does the same? Is that seen as normal human behaviour? No - it's social anathema. The 'people' in the model act like they have all just arrived on the planet - alone, and therefore owe each other no social obligations such as respect, teamwork, kinship - they are hooligans.

@Damarcast 12 лет назад

One must remember that when people are constructing these basic arguments and examples that they are doing so from a generality. Generally speaking, you are more inclined and likely to do something and have an extra motivating factor for doing something if you get a personal benefit. It's just statistics. When we're talking about societies we're talking about large numbers, and when we're talking about large numbers, incentives, like the house in Vegas, win out far more often than not.

@badseed86 12 лет назад

@SmashActionRemix good point...a better solution would be insurance. If you get an insurance against air pollution, your insurance company has an incentive to monitor the polluters such as big factories, to avoid paying you whilst keeping your money. The problem with insurance is that it could be somehow impractical to get insured for everything. Like this guy said, it depends on the situation.

@TOASTEngineer 11 лет назад

But there is a limit; when the land is over-used to the point of worthlessness, a profit can no longer be made. There is a profit motive in preserving valuable natural resources. Which isn't to say, of course, that everyone can be trusted to make the right decision.

@Ibelieveinfreedom1 13 лет назад

My question on this feed is have you explored the incentive system these companies are facing? In my own experience I have found that government regulation is at the root of the problem, placing them in abnormal situations where it is extremely profitable to go against morals and normal practices. I arguing that companies are not to blame; however, there is a shared blame and one that often ORIGINATES with government. Also, in terms of killing civilians, how many people has government killed?

@jerrodmilton5776 11 лет назад

I never said that Privatization is an answer for most common resource problems. There are actually huge problems with privatization and I feel many of Learn Liberties critcizim of public solutions are less than valid. For instance extrinsic rewards like profit have been shown to inhibit creative solutions.

@Wyattinmnk 11 лет назад

You misread my statement. I believe the land can have multiple uses. If, for example, one particular park is truly beautiful, there would be people willing to support it. Furthermore the cost would be proportionate to that willingness and also be directed towards those who value it. If the land could serve some other function that is of higher utility to mankind, there should be nothing to impede that progress.

@CostcoBulkBuyer 10 лет назад

how would you implement a well define property right for a fugitive resource such as blue fin tuna? having 200 nautical miles territoritorial water isnt enough. is there any possble way such as increase the excludability of catching fish? or i mean speices of fish in general? Blue fin tuna was sold for 1.8 million dollars wtf......

@jerrodmilton5776 11 лет назад

True privatizing the fields solved that problem. Well that and curbing urban livestock and turning common grazing areas into public parks managed by cities. The larger problem still exists. You can't privatize the air. You can't really privatize fishing grounds or water tables. It's even possible to apply the commons label to more esoteric concepts like public health, collective trust and even markets themselves.

@Wyattinmnk 11 лет назад

Maybe I should have been more clear, which mechanism would you then prefer for the determination to be made? Clearly you have a preference, as you seem to think a market is not as good as whatever alternative you have in mind. To answer your question, whoever owns the land would try to find the best use, what would generate the most profit; and, if they can, they will repurpose the land. The people in the community would be determining if that purpose is then successful or not.

@peterivoryking 11 лет назад

Sort of. The problem with oil and gas is that it's effectively non-renewable. You can't really ruin the source, just deplete it. So you might not end up with a catastrophe. But I think you're right in that each oil company will increase their profits by increasing production more than the increase in pollution will decrease their profits. And I don't think there's a good private solution to this. There's just too much land where oil and natural gas can be produced/obtained.

@leexag 11 лет назад

Furthermore, in case of corporations, the private owner only bears the cost of his decision for as long as he HEADS THE COMPANY, which can be as short as a few years. So case of corporations, you can have a situation where CEOs make decisions that can bring them enormous income in short term, while destroying the company's future.

@OllytheOl 11 лет назад

Well, my point in a nutshell is that people who take what they need to live do not overuse the land they share. There is a natural limit to how much they can consume. Only when they take for profit - for which there is no limit, do the resources run out.

@OllytheOl 11 лет назад

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you. I didn't mean to suggest that open source software is being suppressed, but that freely volunteered social enterprises are everywhere being suppressed by private enterprise. Our local council is closing a legal advice centre run by solicitors giving free legal advice to the community. A private company will provide this service at slightly less cost to the council. The private company charges £50 for consulting and are in another borough 6 miles away.

@generalrendar7290 9 месяцев назад

Well there's 2 problems with private ownership, 1 is that the owner often will often put the negative consequences of his actions on other land thennin conservation, the cost to maintain the area maybe too much for any hope of profit.

@jerrodmilton5776 11 лет назад

It's not Just the extinction of the Mega Fauna. The eastern forests where actually less biodiverse (though larger) the day Jamestown was founded then today. Basically it was one big garden forest. A managed resource not held in common but competed over through war, treaty, and elaborate trade systems. Native Americans where not noble savages living in harmony with the land because they didn't seek profit. They where sophisticated and advanced farmers, traders and statesman.

@yuothineyesasian 12 лет назад

But is that the best mechanism to better everyones' economic prosperity?

@MrCharles7994 11 лет назад

you can apply this point to the oil and natural gas industry. Oil/Natural gas hurt overall productivity through climate change, but those industries are unlikely to see negatives of this action until its very, very, people starving in the streets and society is anarchy, bad. Indeed, as global warming increases, we might need more of those resources to counteract its immediate effects.

@OllytheOl 11 лет назад

The heaters problem was that the organisations (not individuals) had no moral obligation to each other. If you build a community, the cohesiveness of that community depends on acting responsibly towards each other, but also in maintaining that community's habitat or environment. More community spirit leads to better commons, less or no community spirit leads to worse commons. One would have to say that private ownership leads to less community spirit, and to the eradication of commons.

@KeroroGunsouTX 12 лет назад

This video is a perfect example of why I have problem with most LearnLiberty videos. While they present a seemingly rational argument, it is inevitably fundamentally biased. Near the end, Prof. Mulholland talks about the benefits and weaknesses of public ownership and the strengths of private ownership, but doesn't explore the weaknesses of private ownership, first and foremost being that private ownership means limiting access to those "shared" resources, which he only mentions in passing.

@Akelmn 11 лет назад

So, the argument for privatization over public ownership basically boils down to: "I want more benefits!". Public ownership improves accessibility. A private owner may exclude everyone but himself from entering the park. The erosion of the pasture doesn't occur because it's not owned; it occurs because of people wanting to reap maximum benefits without paying attention to sustainability. Ownership also doesn't guarantee the resource won't be depleted; it only dictates who can use it.

@Mablak200 11 лет назад

Even supposing someone shopped there every day, that's at most 15 extra bucks a month, for most people it would be much less than that. While min. wage can pass costs onto us in one way, no min. wage causes other economic costs to be passed onto us in more expensive ways, via healthcare and food stamps. It's just one aspect of a solution, not the whole thing. There's a Huff Post article detailing how they pay: "Walmart's Internal Compensation Documents Reveal Systematic Limit On Advancement".

@DeadMech1 12 лет назад

We aren't discussing t-shirts here however. The example used in the video is a national park or a feedlot. And in all honesty even if we were discussing t-shirts you would find a very large amount of any population who want something other than those examples on their shirts. Enough to go through the effort of diversifying the options available. Let's be honest. The way things are now I see the same shirt seven times a day already.

@ahrraminsun8162 10 лет назад

Bitcoin is currently suffering from tragedy of the commons regarding pooled mining. Hopefully we can change the protocol such as to fix this.

@ent257 11 лет назад

This example works really good today with fish and Timber, another great example might be forest law in magna carta (robin hood) era nottingham. The reason why it happens so little today (in the west) is because of this clear example so concisely refuting the idea of having a commons vs private property, at least in most of the western policy setting minds since the 18th century.

@fermista 12 лет назад

I wouldn't want to see national parks worse off under a system of private ownership either, but you should really take note that decisions made for profit, and decisions made for the general public ("the people") and environment aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. A company running a national park would still be accountable for the way they act, in a more direct way than the government in fact, because if people don't like them, they simply won't go to the park - bad rep, less income.

@boleroinferno 11 лет назад

Pre-feudal German society was organized into communities of people who all shared their land and resources. For a detailed account, search google for "the mark Engels", first result, and read his anthropological account of a society which lived in harmony, redividing land periodically to ensure everyone's allotment was equally fruitful.

@emmapt4021 9 лет назад

isn't it limiting the access to open-access resources paradoxical though?

@OllytheOl 11 лет назад

Suppose I am a geek using open source software. If I improve that software freely, it not only benefits me as a user, but may also encourage other geeks to get involved. If they also improve it, we all benefit. As more geeks get on board, the software gets better and better. I don't have to be in it for money. I can do it for better software than I can purchase or create alone. The same rewards could apply to societies, but such ideas are suppressed by vested interests.

@Akelmn 11 лет назад

So, if there is no market, for example, for ecological reserves to preserve the environment, they should be destroyed for something more profitable? What about ozone depletion, global warming and other externalities which will be felt by the entire world until much later and whose cost can't be quantified (and which are very hard, if not impossible, and costly to reverse)?

@Draanor 12 лет назад

Libertarian economic theory also is based on the tenants that you: can't hurt other people, you can't steal from other people, and you must respect property rights. Businesses would be regulated to the extent that they follow these tenants. The regulation, of course, would be through proper accountability of those businesses and people running those businesses. This isn't a silver bullet either. The question is whether government involvement makes things more efficient (ha!) or not.

@an.unarmed.civilian 12 лет назад

The same thing that stops the government. NOTHING. (other than their own desire to keep beautiful land how it is) But to be sure you'll have to ask the thousands of privately owned parks across the country.

@metsubo 12 лет назад

So then by all means let us know why LLCs exist if the company is "solely responsible" ?

@davidyang2437 8 лет назад

Who bears the cost of damages if a private owner's actions exceeds their ability to pay?

@samwalters6170 8 лет назад

He does, he would have to sell the land, and if that wouldn't pay for it, take a loan and go into debt.

@SangoProductions213 12 лет назад

I never said it was a free expense. I just said that it's not profitable, so a private institution would not keep it. And sorry, I meant ONE of the original roles, not THE original. I should have made that more clear.

@awbrynes 12 лет назад

"Whatever most people want is the most profitable" That's completely untrue in many cases, for example millions in Africa want clean food, water, and effective medical care and yet businesses have overlooked this venture because it wouldn't be profitable. You can't necessarily extract enough money from the populace for some immensely beneficial services to make them profitable.

@Ceibhfhionn 11 лет назад

Noble-Prize winning economist Elinor Ostrom showed that most common resources are regulated, because their users have very strong incentives to cooperatively manage their resource for the benefit of all in the user group. Using field work from around the world, she - and subsequent writers - proved that that resources are degraded not because they're commons, but because of specific local historical events that have caused the communal regulation systems to break down.

@jesbeard 12 лет назад

The tragedy of the commons is actually worse than the video presents (though I believe Garret Hardin's original writing on the topic addressed it). It is not just that communally owned property results in over-exploitation, it also results in under-development. Just as everyone has an incentive to put more cattle into the field, no one has sufficient incentive to invest in helping the field become more productive.

@Barskor1 11 лет назад

That would be Grounds for intervention as Previously stated try and keep up. No punishment will reverse pollution but as an example it will prevent it. Mere fines do nothing so removal of the property will & as punishment they get to work at cleaning it up Salinized land can be reclaimed just as Nature does it by rainfall that can be accelerated by scooping washing, settling the sediment separating the liquids and solar distilling to reclaim the water concentrating the salts for use or disposal.

@Wyattinmnk 11 лет назад

First; by in large, profits are apart of mutually beneficial transactions. The consumer and producer both feel they are benefiting from the exchange. Humans sometimes make mistakes, but a business does not last long on lies. Private ownership is superior in providing an incentive for honesty. It would only be worse if it was publicly owned.

@fluteloka 11 лет назад

I have tried sensetistng public by public on an issue. Connect each individual at emotional level on the concerned issue. It works wonders. Work from a strong center outwards like ripple. .

@Ceibhfhionn 11 лет назад

Although it's a powerful argument, the tragedy of the commons actually rarely exists. Most commons worldwide are de facto regulated communities. That doesn't mean the regulation is effective (economically or environmentally), but the tragedy Hardin wrote about rarely occurs. Of the examples this prof cites, only fisheries are truly "open access." Elephant habitats are regulated by local people and governments, as is the Amazon forest (by local cultivators,, governments, NGOs).

@PanEtRosa 11 лет назад

There is, however, a conflict between such a ubiquitous consensus model and the right of communities and individuals to free will. The right to error needs to be protected.

@Ceibhfhionn 11 лет назад

I meant to say -- the incentives for cooperation cannot be explained themselves as "rational self-interest;" it's also about valued relationships, an emotional connection with a given piece of pasture or forest, social mores that demand community regulation, etc.

@VenusFreedom777 11 лет назад

Furthermore, it will work like a library. You check out what you need and return it when you are done, so someone else can use it. Efficiency will be taken into consideration at every step of the production process. Again, they're will be plenty of challenges and REAL problems to work out with resource allocation.

@crazypants88 12 лет назад

@AndroidPolitician I'm pretty sure I agree with you on air, in my mind it's innately common. Well why wouldn't make much of a difference. In the US, the EPA protects polluting company from lawsuits from people who own property close to them. This way the threat of repurcussions from polluting is minimized.

@TOASTEngineer 11 лет назад

That can happen, yes. Theoretically, the consumer would notice these things happening and only purchase products from companies that practice sustainability- but we all know that people just aren't that smart. Unfortunately, while government intervention seems like an obvious solution, I can tell you from personal experience (my father is a forester) that the U.S. government agencies that were created to remedy this exact situation are nearly as destructive.

@SangoProductions213 12 лет назад

Exactly, infact it's actually their legal responsibility to their stock holders to improve their value (otherwise the stock holders can sue for them not taking advantage for the stock value).

@busterbox 12 лет назад

The market. The government assessor would use market transactions to estimate the value, and the appraisals would be mapped on a land-value map and made available to all. There'd be much LESS waste and inefficiency, because speculators would be removed from the market.

@ZanderTG 11 лет назад

Why should your life and well-being be immune to a price tag? If all value is expressed through money, surely your value must be the same. Not the value of your time, the value of you. Do you not have some inherent worth, some right to exist, that has nothing to do with monetary value? Something beyond money?

@brouhahabob 12 лет назад

And who would set the economic value? The price? Not the people by supply and demand? But by governmental official with a lack of information and backdoor interests? There would be a ton of waste and inefficiency.

@thekoollemon 12 лет назад

i don't think the video ever implied that the person wouldn't do it without monetary gain, the problem is under public ownership there is no opportunity for profit

@aarontovo 10 лет назад

This idea that private ownership solves the tragedy of the commons is simply not born out by readily available facts. When private companies own land they do things like mining via mountaintop removal anything else they can think of to exploit the resource before they move on. More democratic approaches to the TOTC have a much more successful track record.

@Dylanoakhill 10 лет назад

Democracy sounds AWESOME! Until we have assholes who refuse to pay the price of exploiting public resources and then gather a heavily armed militia to hold off the government by using their wives and daughters as human shields. AKA Bundy Ranch.

@kyleginnetti2099 10 лет назад

zaphodfortytoo you mean refusing to pay unconstitutional biuracracys for the use of land stolen from the state.

@Wyattinmnk 11 лет назад

I absolutely want private ownership of parks and land. I want someone to purchase that land, and try to generate the greatest profit he/she can with it. If they are earning a profit, they are providing something useful for others. Those parks are generating nothing of value; and, if they have inherent value that is worth preserving, there would be people willing to pay to enjoy it.

@octalogic102 11 лет назад

so what your saying is if you can't afford it you should not have access to it?

@FletchforFreedom 12 лет назад

@BronzeEleven It's not merely assumption; it's history. What difference is it how everyone's values would be treated in an objectively impossible system completely at odds with reality?

@RainbowManification 11 лет назад

Only if the masses are informed there is a problem.

@boleroinferno 11 лет назад

In reality, private ownership treats resources extremely poorly. In North Dakota where there's an oil boom, the oil industry fracks to extract fossil fuels from the ground. Fracking is a process of injecting highly explosive chemicals into the ground and then detonating the. This poisons ground and water supplies, and 29% of the extracted gas is just burned off. Corporate agriculture is even worse: mass gmo & pesticide poisoning, nutrient depletion of soil, chemical fertilizers and monocropping.

@Akelmn 11 лет назад

Yes, the effects of destruction can leave his property. Air pollution and aquifer pollution are 2 prominent examples. No punishment will reverse pollution. And even if they didn't, it's still a waste of limited resources. If the destroyed property cannot be reutilized, it's the loss of a limited resource. You can't reuse salinated land.

@MrCharles7994 11 лет назад

If the state is rational, the state. If the individual is rational, the individual. If there is enough ambiguity, the individual. I vote to maintain this status, as should everyone else.

@MrCharles7994 11 лет назад

It was nice to have a calm conversation with someone, for once, yes. Good night.

@awbrynes 12 лет назад

exactly, companies don't care about they enjoyment of the general populace unless it's relevant to their bottom line. Their primary duty is to the stockholders.

@Akelmn 11 лет назад

People are increasingly getting tired of the crap pulled by proprietary software makers, such as undocumented APIs, locked down platforms, no execution of unsigned programs, internet authentication, etc. Free and Open Source Software also makes its money from support, dual-licensing, being paid to develop or customize the software to the customer's needs. The resulting software is also a reward that benefits everyone. Money isn't the only reward.

@Mablak200 11 лет назад

That's the same statistic I quoted. 26.6% are 20-24, i.e. adults, and add the remaining roughly 50%, so over 75% of minimum wage workers are adults. Even if we're being generous and saying age 24 is an adulthood cutoff, that's still half of minimum wage workers who are adults working jobs that can barely sustain them and/or their families.

@Magicwillnz 13 лет назад

@HolidayFortnight I'm not throwing logic out the window: what I described happens. If we're going to talk about the tragedy of the commons I want to talk about the tragedy of private ownership.

@druidwolf11 11 лет назад

I want to be a park ranger, and I would be happy just to be a steward of the Forrest I don't need to benefit from my innovation monetarily, I benefit by having a feeling of happiness because the beautiful nature is preserved and I helped to protect it.

@SangoProductions213 12 лет назад

I look at the comments below...and am greatly dissapointed. People saying this and that about government owning everything, or privatizing everything...go over the last minute of this video again, please.

@nathanjacquard6676 11 лет назад

as more forests are clear-cut then the price of forest land will go up, eventually things will reach a balance where it is cheaper for the logging companies to take care of their currently owned forest land rather than endlessly buying up forests and leaving them barren. we will never ever run out of resources due to how prices work.