Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: the commons

Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 16:43:28

In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2013, at 21:03:22

> some peoples do manage subtractable resources in sustainable ways without the imposition of top-down government.

Hardin didn't say there had to be top-down government:

> > To many, the word coercion implies arbitrary decisions of distant and irresponsible bureaucrats; but this is not a necessary part of its meaning. The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.

> You might like:
>
> > When analysts perceive the human beings they model as being trapped inside perverse situations, they then assume that other human beings external to those involved - scholars and public officials - are able to analyze the situation, ascertain why counterproductive outcomes are reached, and posit what changes in the rules-in-use will enable participants to improve outcomes. Then, external officials are expected to impose an optimal set of rules on those individuals involved. It is assumed that the momentum for change must come from outside the situation rather than from the self-reflection and creativity of those within a situation to restructure their own patterns of interaction.

I'm the "external official" here, yes? Assumed to be able to analyze the situation and change the rules to improve outcomes?

> > dramatic incidents of overharvested resources had captured widespread attention, while studies by anthropologists, economic historians, engineers, philosophers, and political scientists of local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over long periods of time were *not* noticed by many theorists and public officials.
>
> Usenet is probably a case of one of them.
>
> Babble isn't.
>
> Yeah?

Isn't what? Local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over a long period of time?

> > > You can send your criminals to Australia but ... Australians (now) aren't as criminal as they once were. Perhaps.
>
> > Becoming less criminal sounds like a good thing. How did that happen?

> Then land was granted to convicts who had served their time. There was an incentive at last. After 1792, four years after the first fleet first sailed into Botany Bay, the convict colony of New South Wales was self-supporting.

Thanks for finding and sharing that story. Incentive was the key?

Bob


a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:Dr. Bob thread:1047868
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20130914/msgs/1051264.html