Quote:
Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance
I reject it as a metaphor for all human enterprise, something which is implicitly present in the statement "As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain."
|
That maxim was given only as a premise for the conclusion, not as something that is implicit to the human enterprise.
As I noted above, I recognize the essential theoretical weakness of the argument given, and expected you to reject it for the same reasons.
What I'm asking here is, regardless of the arguments referenced in the OP, do you recognize that there can be a 'tragedy of the commons' in actuality?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance
The main problem is not the occurence of the allegory, but the poverty of the suggested solutions. Even a quick glance at the variety of contemporary and historical cultures of mankind would lead to a plethora of possibilities instead of merely the two exclusively presented by the author (Hardin, not Dil.)
|
Btw, the assertion given is quite specific in applying only in specific situations (commonly held resources).
I don't think your assertion that this was offered as a general principle of human nature is tenable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance
I agree about the mixture of cooperation and competition, but it is clear that cooperation comes first and is even necessary to bring about the conditions for competition. To use a simple metaphor : People see the competing athletes but are blind to the cooperation required for the setting of the competiton, i.e. the buildings, teams, schedules, infrastructure, etc. This myopic view is what makes it ideological. Solid science builds on all data, not a biased selection thereof.
|
Again, you are taking the a singular and specific example and transfering it to the general case which was not part of the OP thesis. You are arguing against something other than the OP here.
You know I hold almost as contemptuous of a view of academic economics as you do, so please don't imply that I'm taking the human rationalist or the maximizing sheppard as gospel.
So, do you accept the idea that a 'tragedy of the commons' can occur as a phenomena independent of any arguments given in the OP?