The Illusion of the Commons, by Mr. Nobody's blog
In Anarchist theory, the most common restructuring of society would be in a utopian, collectivist manner. However, there are many who would NOT wish to participate in such a society, who would wish to live in a pseudo-capitalist (libertarian, if you will) society. In order to truly be an anarchist, one must hold a certain disdain for coercive action. Therefore, one might say it would by hypocritical to deny these people the opportunities to do so. However, in the collectivist mindset, private property is theft from the general community, and capitalism invites oppression. This is the basis of the anarcho-individualism vs. anarcho-collectivism debate.
Possibly the most important issue in this debate (and in the debate of collectivism vs. individualism in general) is the “Tragedy of the Commons”, best illustrated by the “Milkshake Theory”. The theory follows as such: Give three children one milkshake. Give them three straws. Tell them the milkshake belongs to all of them. The children will bolt down the milkshake as fast as possible. Why? Because each child wants to make sure he can get as much of the milkshake as possible before the other children get it (partially due to a lack of trust between the three children). This is the most commonly used argument against collective ownership of a resource. An example of a real life tragedy was that of the grazing land prior to the development of the dustbowl. All the land was owned by a large mortgage bank. Because of this, farmers could not fence off portions of the land for private use. Farmers would endeavor to have their livestock graze as much as possible, before other farmers were able to use up the grazing land. This lead to a complete loss of vegetation, and the topsoil blew away with the wind.
The most common reply of the collectivist is that the children illustrated have been raised with a “capitalist mindset”. They will cite personal experiences of children happily sharing their respective “milkshakes”, and conclude that a child raised in a collective will not suffer the tragedy of the commons. The collectivist children would have been raised to cooperate with and trust one another. The debate cannot proceed past this point, for it becomes nothing more than a debate of nature vs. nurture, a pointless dispute in which neither belief can be verified (perhaps because both play an integral role in development?). However, both sides fail to consider the violent nature (at least in our children) of the dispossessed.
If child A and child B both drink at a steady pace, but notice child C drinking more than both of them put together, they will not passively accept this as “just the way things are”. If left without adult supervision, children A and B will run child C up a flagpole by his underwear. If a flagpole is unavailable then they will simply beat him to within an inch of his life. This implies that those raised in egalitarian societies (In this case equality will be defined as equally deserving. Regardless of what various college professors will tell you, very few still hold the notion that all men are created equal in the temporal sense.) already hold the preconceived notion of getting their “fair share”. This can be substantiated by histories MANY bread riots. But would this not imply that in the minds of the children, the milkshake has already been divided into thirds? If so, would not giving the children three glasses for their milkshakes be a more practical way of partitioning their resource?
This would also imply that private property, or at least possession, could be a naturally occurring mental abstraction. It would follow that it makes little difference as to if resources are communally owned, or privately partitioned. According to the original libertine philosophy, one cannot claim as ones own what one cannot actually utilize. If the proverbial milkshake is too large for one child to drink, then he cannot claim it as his own. Such property, even the libertarians will agree, is theft. If it is not large enough for all three, then they obviously have a neglectful mother who has not provided sufficient resources for all of the children. Therefore it is in child C’s best interest to attempt to assist children A and B in obtaining enough milkshake for everyone (read: philanthropy) . However, a well meaning, yet dim-witted mother (read: politician) has no business trying to divide a milkshake of insufficient quantity between three children. This would cause dissatisfaction among ALL of the children. It may also be worth noting that there would not be such a strain on resources if said mothers (now I’m actually referring to women, as opposed to the government) would tell the Pope to go screw himself and learn the proper use of birth control.
Time to stop speaking in metaphors…
One problem people have with philanthropy, or the concept of collectivism is the issue of moochers. When considering both, people will point to the good-for-nothings who have no intention of working, but would still drain society’s resources. Such people can only exist within a socialist welfare state. In a libertarian (free of economic coercion as well; an individual cannot utilize an entire communities resources) society, with a relatively educated population to keep up the threat of revolt, no charity would be willing to pay for the upkeep of such people (the good-for-nothings). The Salvation Army, for example, charges a small amount of rent, and requires a certain amount of volunteer work from residents. In a collectivist society (which could easily exist within a larger libertarian society) the community would soon notice how unproductive said moochers are. In a gift economy, common personal disdain can go a long way.
Conclusion? No economic system is inherently evil. Nor is any economic system inherently oppressive. All oppression stems from acts of coercion. Acts of coercion are justified with an over inflated ego, and fueled by a disproportionate greed. Contrary to what you see on MTV, you don’t have to be an asshole all the time.
Possibly the most important issue in this debate (and in the debate of collectivism vs. individualism in general) is the “Tragedy of the Commons”, best illustrated by the “Milkshake Theory”. The theory follows as such: Give three children one milkshake. Give them three straws. Tell them the milkshake belongs to all of them. The children will bolt down the milkshake as fast as possible. Why? Because each child wants to make sure he can get as much of the milkshake as possible before the other children get it (partially due to a lack of trust between the three children). This is the most commonly used argument against collective ownership of a resource. An example of a real life tragedy was that of the grazing land prior to the development of the dustbowl. All the land was owned by a large mortgage bank. Because of this, farmers could not fence off portions of the land for private use. Farmers would endeavor to have their livestock graze as much as possible, before other farmers were able to use up the grazing land. This lead to a complete loss of vegetation, and the topsoil blew away with the wind.
The most common reply of the collectivist is that the children illustrated have been raised with a “capitalist mindset”. They will cite personal experiences of children happily sharing their respective “milkshakes”, and conclude that a child raised in a collective will not suffer the tragedy of the commons. The collectivist children would have been raised to cooperate with and trust one another. The debate cannot proceed past this point, for it becomes nothing more than a debate of nature vs. nurture, a pointless dispute in which neither belief can be verified (perhaps because both play an integral role in development?). However, both sides fail to consider the violent nature (at least in our children) of the dispossessed.
If child A and child B both drink at a steady pace, but notice child C drinking more than both of them put together, they will not passively accept this as “just the way things are”. If left without adult supervision, children A and B will run child C up a flagpole by his underwear. If a flagpole is unavailable then they will simply beat him to within an inch of his life. This implies that those raised in egalitarian societies (In this case equality will be defined as equally deserving. Regardless of what various college professors will tell you, very few still hold the notion that all men are created equal in the temporal sense.) already hold the preconceived notion of getting their “fair share”. This can be substantiated by histories MANY bread riots. But would this not imply that in the minds of the children, the milkshake has already been divided into thirds? If so, would not giving the children three glasses for their milkshakes be a more practical way of partitioning their resource?
This would also imply that private property, or at least possession, could be a naturally occurring mental abstraction. It would follow that it makes little difference as to if resources are communally owned, or privately partitioned. According to the original libertine philosophy, one cannot claim as ones own what one cannot actually utilize. If the proverbial milkshake is too large for one child to drink, then he cannot claim it as his own. Such property, even the libertarians will agree, is theft. If it is not large enough for all three, then they obviously have a neglectful mother who has not provided sufficient resources for all of the children. Therefore it is in child C’s best interest to attempt to assist children A and B in obtaining enough milkshake for everyone (read: philanthropy) . However, a well meaning, yet dim-witted mother (read: politician) has no business trying to divide a milkshake of insufficient quantity between three children. This would cause dissatisfaction among ALL of the children. It may also be worth noting that there would not be such a strain on resources if said mothers (now I’m actually referring to women, as opposed to the government) would tell the Pope to go screw himself and learn the proper use of birth control.
Time to stop speaking in metaphors…
One problem people have with philanthropy, or the concept of collectivism is the issue of moochers. When considering both, people will point to the good-for-nothings who have no intention of working, but would still drain society’s resources. Such people can only exist within a socialist welfare state. In a libertarian (free of economic coercion as well; an individual cannot utilize an entire communities resources) society, with a relatively educated population to keep up the threat of revolt, no charity would be willing to pay for the upkeep of such people (the good-for-nothings). The Salvation Army, for example, charges a small amount of rent, and requires a certain amount of volunteer work from residents. In a collectivist society (which could easily exist within a larger libertarian society) the community would soon notice how unproductive said moochers are. In a gift economy, common personal disdain can go a long way.
Conclusion? No economic system is inherently evil. Nor is any economic system inherently oppressive. All oppression stems from acts of coercion. Acts of coercion are justified with an over inflated ego, and fueled by a disproportionate greed. Contrary to what you see on MTV, you don’t have to be an asshole all the time.
posted by Alice at Tuesday, May 09, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home