Hardin later told a colleague (the late Robert V. Andelson, professor of philosophy at Auburn University) that there would be no tragedy of the commons if the socio-political arrangements and institutions were structured as proposed by the American political economist Henry George.
Edward Dodson The Georgist implementation of the Lockean proviso is indeed one worthwhile solution to the tragedy of the commons, so called! It allows for privatization of land while acknowledging the commons and natural world as as a birthright of humanity, to be remedied by the land value tax. However i think Ostrom's work has been to show that there are very few one-size-fits-all solutions to common problems.
There are a number of examples in this paper: www.researchgate.net/publication/13102089_Revisiting_the_Commons_Local_Lessons_Global_Challenges I'm most familiar with forest commons in Nepal that are run by locals, outside gov't oversight and without private ownership. Ostrom won the Economics equivalent of a Nobel prize for her work documenting similar systems all over the world (some of which are discussed in the above paper).
@@wesjones6370 Leads to government regulations based on a hierarchy. If the people were actually able to regulate government. Private property enforces ownership of a living force, which is labor.
I really have no idea how people consider this a "debunking". Governments are people, but they are not "1 individual" they are a group of individuals. So when she says that there is no difference between the government and individuals that isnt 100% correct. Also the government had the ability to use force to get people to adhere to the law they choose to implement whereas an individual does not. Government prevents the "tragedy of the commons" through private land ownership or state control of the land (national park service) in which case the land is owned by the government. Land cannot just be "not owned".
I believe that pure democracy is also a problem, since a bigger group would impose a situation to smaller or non-organized groups. Individuals may become government. Resources like money, land, water, must be protected from exploitation by both individuals and parties. The tragedy of the commons must be discussed in the level of individuals (basic education) and government (political parties), so resource management can be democratized.
Hardin proposed that there were only two ways to avoid the tragedy of the commons: privatization and government control. What Ostrom did was go out into communities where there were common pool resources that could have fallen victim to the tragedy of the commons to see what actually happened. What she found was that local communities generally came together to develop strategies to manage common pool resources collaboratively without either privatization or control by an outside authority such as a government. The fact that common pool resources are frequently managed successfully without resorting to either of the strategies Hardin claimed were the only way to do so debunks his claim.
Try testing it to prove the null hypothesis. That’s how you disprove theories. It’s painfully obvious when you do how it works. The hypothetical she describes was used as a thought experiment in an essay to explain it. The concept was conceived of as a result of the outcomes of British common land that had been observed. Hence the name. It wasn’t just a supposition. But don’t take my word for it. Try it yourself. Get a group of strangers together and tell them that they all have access to whatever is within the mat on the floor in front of them. Then tell them they can take as many of the coins you place in it as they wish, but for every coin in it, you will double the number every minute. See how long they last. Now divide it into sections and assign them each their own property. They can only take from their own section. Add a coin to each and repeat. Note what happens. Hint: this is the story of how thanksgiving came to be. ;)
im inclined to agree but what i think that they are trying to get at is that there are work arounds so rather than just sharing the land people are running their livestock together and can agree to limit how much firewood is harvested like by having only a few trusted folks manage the woodlands with thinning and pruning of dead branches
This simply is not true. In England the right to use public lands was regulated by English Common Law and Local traditions. Only shareholders in public lands known as commoners had the right to use common land and how many cattle they could graze was regulated by what was known as a stint. When the Boston Common, now a park in central Boston, MA, was first established, shareholders in the common were limited to a total of 70 cows between them on the common. Common land was managed throughout Europe and in other places around the world for centuries without degradation. There was no observation of the tragedy of the commons occuring on British common land. Hardin made that up writing in California in the 1960's.
That was Hardin's argment. The whole reason Hardin wrote his original article on the tragedy of the commons in Science Magazine was to make the argument that immegration of people he considered inferior should not be allowed. At that time the concept of the demographic transition had not taken hold. Post demographic transition countries such as Japan, Germany China and other MDCs Have Total Fertility Rates less than the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Hardin's thesis was essentially racist and was probably the origin of the current white supremacist great replacement conspiracy theory.
![CENTRAL CEE - GEN Z LUV [VERTICAL VIDEO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VIbidJm9q34/mqdefault.jpg)
Elinor Ostrom gave the biggest middle finger to Hardin and I love her
Hardin later told a colleague (the late Robert V. Andelson, professor of philosophy at Auburn University) that there would be no tragedy of the commons if the socio-political arrangements and institutions were structured as proposed by the American political economist Henry George.
Edward Dodson The Georgist implementation of the Lockean proviso is indeed one worthwhile solution to the tragedy of the commons, so called! It allows for privatization of land while acknowledging the commons and natural world as as a birthright of humanity, to be remedied by the land value tax. However i think Ostrom's work has been to show that there are very few one-size-fits-all solutions to common problems.
The tragedy of the commons is a POTENTIAL outcome, not a guaranteed one.
Could someone give me more examples were the Tragedy of the Commons is solved by people themselves and not through government regulation?
There are a number of examples in this paper: www.researchgate.net/publication/13102089_Revisiting_the_Commons_Local_Lessons_Global_Challenges
I'm most familiar with forest commons in Nepal that are run by locals, outside gov't oversight and without private ownership. Ostrom won the Economics equivalent of a Nobel prize for her work documenting similar systems all over the world (some of which are discussed in the above paper).
Also vimeo.com/235363806
Private property.
Ostrom's book "Governing the Commons" has many examples.
@@wesjones6370 Leads to government regulations based on a hierarchy. If the people were actually able to regulate government. Private property enforces ownership of a living force, which is labor.
I really have no idea how people consider this a "debunking". Governments are people, but they are not "1 individual" they are a group of individuals. So when she says that there is no difference between the government and individuals that isnt 100% correct. Also the government had the ability to use force to get people to adhere to the law they choose to implement whereas an individual does not.
Government prevents the "tragedy of the commons" through private land ownership or state control of the land (national park service) in which case the land is owned by the government. Land cannot just be "not owned".
I believe that pure democracy is also a problem, since a bigger group would impose a situation to smaller or non-organized groups. Individuals may become government. Resources like money, land, water, must be protected from exploitation by both individuals and parties. The tragedy of the commons must be discussed in the level of individuals (basic education) and government (political parties), so resource management can be democratized.
Hardin proposed that there were only two ways to avoid the tragedy of the commons: privatization and government control. What Ostrom did was go out into communities where there were common pool resources that could have fallen victim to the tragedy of the commons to see what actually happened. What she found was that local communities generally came together to develop strategies to manage common pool resources collaboratively without either privatization or control by an outside authority such as a government. The fact that common pool resources are frequently managed successfully without resorting to either of the strategies Hardin claimed were the only way to do so debunks his claim.
0:30 in that imagined pasture, people didn't talk… Reminds me of the prisoners dilemma as a paradigm of cooperation… they couldn't talk either!
Love getting my environmentalism theory from a member of the Akatsuki, love you long time Itachi
ETHZ flag
Try testing it to prove the null hypothesis. That’s how you disprove theories. It’s painfully obvious when you do how it works.
The hypothetical she describes was used as a thought experiment in an essay to explain it. The concept was conceived of as a result of the outcomes of British common land that had been observed. Hence the name. It wasn’t just a supposition.
But don’t take my word for it. Try it yourself. Get a group of strangers together and tell them that they all have access to whatever is within the mat on the floor in front of them. Then tell them they can take as many of the coins you place in it as they wish, but for every coin in it, you will double the number every minute. See how long they last.
Now divide it into sections and assign them each their own property. They can only take from their own section. Add a coin to each and repeat.
Note what happens. Hint: this is the story of how thanksgiving came to be. ;)
You’re using a myth to support a myth?
im inclined to agree but what i think that they are trying to get at is that there are work arounds so rather than just sharing the land people are running their livestock together and can agree to limit how much firewood is harvested like by having only a few trusted folks manage the woodlands with thinning and pruning of dead branches
@@DeathnoteBB myths aren’t demonstrable like the tragedy is.
ruclips.net/video/TJ7ihC4lDkg/видео.html
This simply is not true. In England the right to use public lands was regulated by English Common Law and Local traditions. Only shareholders in public lands known as commoners had the right to use common land and how many cattle they could graze was regulated by what was known as a stint. When the Boston Common, now a park in central Boston, MA, was first established, shareholders in the common were limited to a total of 70 cows between them on the common. Common land was managed throughout Europe and in other places around the world for centuries without degradation. There was no observation of the tragedy of the commons occuring on British common land. Hardin made that up writing in California in the 1960's.
No
Population explosion is an example
thats mainly in doveloping countries, rich counries have a poor replacement rate
That was Hardin's argment. The whole reason Hardin wrote his original article on the tragedy of the commons in Science Magazine was to make the argument that immegration of people he considered inferior should not be allowed. At that time the concept of the demographic transition had not taken hold. Post demographic transition countries such as Japan, Germany China and other MDCs Have Total Fertility Rates less than the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Hardin's thesis was essentially racist and was probably the origin of the current white supremacist great replacement conspiracy theory.
That's not debunking lmao.