Finally someone who knows something about the subject at hand.
p0ndIf you look at many pre-capitalist societies you will find that many (though not all, communal management was not perfect and I do not pretend that it is) effectively managed their natural resources without depleting them.
Let's take indians for example. A lot of people thought they had no "propery rights". But that was because the land was plenty, but when the areas became more crowded, they did enforce property rights by not hunting at neighboring tribe's areas because that would result in an conflict that would benefit nobody. Indeed free people can arrange property rights without a state, such as
the Not so Wild Wild West (Standford Economics and Finance). And even if there was no neighbouring tribe, they used their own property frugally as they would die out of hunger if they didn't.
And nothing prohibits bunch of communal people from buying a piece of land and using in a communal way in modern society.
And take fishing for example. I don't remember the name of the place but previously there was no overfishing in one place, but the fishermen would not overfish because others would not let such fellows marry their daughters. Thus they used social pressure to solve the coordination problem. However then foreigners and other people arrive. This comes naturally from freedom of movement. Like they don't want to live there, and move out, some people move in. But the mix of cultures meant that the foreigners were not even interested in marrying and the old social pressure system just broke out and overfishing became a problem.
But moral hazard
is a real problem. People don't use other's people's resources (we can call that money) as frugally as they do own. Politicians act like this, and problems like we have in PIGS-countries and the ever-exploding levels of debt I live in a welfare state, and it is down-right obvious to me.
p0ndCompare that to the modern industrial era, where privatization in the name of the tragedy of the commons has resulted in exploitation of the environment and indigenous peoples, avoidable extinction of species, pollution, ineffective distribution of food and water, and so on. And yet people still use it as a justification.
Look tragedy of commons is just one problem. I think economic calculation problem is much, much bigger issue.
If we hadn't industrialized, we would definitely have a problem with the distribution of food and water. Or please give me an example of a country with state-run farms that does not have such problems, or a country with living standards of western society with state-run economy.
Then on your second point about environment and so on. You forget is that there's
a cost associated with everything. Sure, state could declare that half of UK's land cannot be used by humans anymore. What would happen? The price of the remaining land would skyrocket and so would the cost of many goods we consume like food. The poor would be the worst to get hit.
The real question is
who should be the one to pay the cost and to decide how a piece of land is used. Someone is going to have to pay. I believe it is for humans to decide on their own (free-market environmentalism). I do believe in marginal utility and
subjective theory of value. For example here we have Pentti Linkola's The Finnish Natural Heritage Foundation which buys land by donations and preserves it forever.
This whole
dumb topic is a great example of tragedy of commons. In this case, the commons is the entire society. If me and tom lived on different planets, we wouldn't have this argument because there's no commons to shared and fight over with. Tom and his friends could arrange their planet as he wishes, and I wouldnt't care. Indeed this is why property rights are so useful. It provides a
peaceful way to solve usage of resources instead of these
dumb arguments, quarrels and wars, and whatever we have.
p0ndBasically my point in regard to yours: you are wrong that a private owner is necessary for resource management.
Private ownership is necessary for industrialization which is necessary for modern level of living standards. Pre-industrial societies used more shared version of propery rights and I have no problem with that but such things don't work really well with the modern society.
We've many things that can be considered
public goods, and depending on the economist you ask, you get a different answer which these are.
Globalization and cheap industrial labour is the best way for developing countries to escape their grinding poverty. Don't believe me? Ask
Paul Krugman, who happens to be a Nobel-prized economist aswell.
Paul KrugmanThese improvements have not taken place because well-meaning people in the West have done anything to help--foreign aid, never large, has lately shrunk to virtually nothing. Nor is it the result of the benign policies of national governments, which are as callous and corrupt as ever. It is the indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor. It is not an edifying spectacle; but no matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better.
...
In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.
But you are right. Taking the homo economicus and applying it to pre-industrial societies is just dumb. But that's not my argument.
