False "Tragedy of the Commons"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Aug 10, 2007 11:22 AM EDT |
Regardless of how many rats, horses, dingos, cows or vegetarians eat the grass, no matter now much each eats, the grass doesn't run out. The Tragedy of the Commons requires scarcity in order for the tragedy to occur. So, what's wrong with agreeing to disagree? |
| Libervis Aug 10, 2007 12:56 PM EDT |
Indeed. Unite around the fact that we are all different. It's a fun story though. :) |
| hkwint Aug 10, 2007 1:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:So, what's wrong with agreeing to disagree? Ask that to the people who boycot Novell because of the Microsoft / Novell deal. Quoting:the grass doesn't run out. Neither does Free Software when you share it. But I agree, of course the story has its flaws. |
| Libervis Aug 10, 2007 1:05 PM EDT |
I strongly disagree with the deal because it allowed Microsoft to basically buy credibility points in favor of their patent claims against Free Software. That's perhaps as short as I can put it. As for the rest of the deal, I would reject the injections of proprietary software wherever they may have happened, but other than that if it helps Novell sell more Free Software to people who would have otherwise not used it, I wouldn't have a big problem with it. Same goes for all other deals of that kind. So I don't boycott them, but I support openly criticizing them for budging in on the patents front. That was crossing the fine line. |
| hkwint Aug 10, 2007 1:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:So I don't boycott themI didn't mean you, Daniël... I agree with you a lot, though it took some time before you convinced me. However, the last few months I become more and more certain the Free Software way is the right way, like you described in 'Merging free softwareand open source. I also disagreed with the patent deal, and with software patents in general, you might remember some stories from the past I wrote about that. Nonetheless, I can also understand the viewpoint of ESR (Linux world domination) and the like, and what they say also makes sense to me. That's a bit of a conflict inside my head. The story wasn't meant to choose a side (though it is objective neither), just a reflection of what I witnessed in the mentioned threat, and far more often; which is the basic problem of the GNU/Linux community: intern struggles. |
| Libervis Aug 10, 2007 2:16 PM EDT |
I figured you didn't mean me, but I just wanted to express my current position on it. That said I am more interested now in what Microsoft does next with regards to GPLv3. About internal struggles, while sometimes they can be pointless and wasteful, overall I am really beginning to accept them as part of what this community is, in nature. From the outside it may seem like we are in a constant war between each other and yet when you look at what the Free Software community still manages to accomplish it doesn't seem to be all that hurtful as some people believe it is. It feels strange perhaps because we are still getting used to a world so full of diversity, but maybe instead of just trying to soften the debate we should learn to recognize it as our strength. Basically, I am different from you, and I will always defend who I am and what I believe, even while this changes, and I trust that you will do just the same, because this way we create a process which makes us both evolve further. That's what I call being united around the fact that we are different. This doesn't mean merely sitting back and saying "ya, we have our differences so the debate is over". No, it's "ya, we have our differences and we will debate them every chance we get.. we always gain an insight or two this way". It's a weird symbiotic relationship, but it works. :) And in the end, the best philosophy wins through a process like this. So keep the passion running and debate going. The same applies to forking. Doing a fork is a sort of a communication too. "I can do it better this way and I'm gonna prove it to you". You part ways only to meet somewhere in the future carrying an achievement for everyone. Just think of Compiz Fusion. :) |
| hkwint Aug 12, 2007 3:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:The Tragedy of the Commons requires scarcity in order for the tragedy to occur. Well, after two days of thinking, I decided money isn't scarce either. It even is created out of nothing sometimes, if the central banks are willing too. This doesn't respect the laws of physics: Mass or energy can't come out of nothing, if it isn't already there. Money, on the other hand can. It also can disappear into nothing. It is able to go like /dev/zeros -> customer -> /dev/null. Grass doesn't come out of nothing, on the other hand. In my country, grass is becoming to be scarce, because lots of grass are converted to concrete, streets etc. People even complain about meadows with cows in it becoming scarce (mainly because of diseases and a natural-fertilizer surplus which is harming the environment, it becomes less and less attractive to keep cows and pigs in the meadows, or outside at all). |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 12, 2007 9:24 AM EDT |
> Money, on the other hand can. It also can disappear into nothing. I think you would enjoy this, especially since the EU has cursed themselves with a central bank: http://mises.org:88/Fed (streaming video, xine deals with it fine) It's important to understand the difference between "money" and "currency". A fiat currency is one with declared value, as opposed to a "hard" currency which has intrinsic value. Fiat currency can, indeed, be created out of nothing. Inflation is the tax we pay for having granted to government the power to print worthless money along with the power to coerce people to use it. Printing money does not create wealth, it merely changes the numbers used in accounting. In the US, we face agriculture issues like that too. The populated areas are not interested in livestock, so such things are done in areas with fewer people and more "marginal" land. I fully expect that if trade barriers are honestly dropped between countries of the EU, such a shift will strengthen. Trade is how wealth is _created_. I value what I get from you more than what I give you, you value what you receive more than you give, so both of us are more wealthy than we were prior to the trade. Any barrier to trade, be it sales taxes, property taxes or more direct tarriffs and quotas, all impoverish everyone involved. Lots of room in Russia for cattle, pigs and goats. No need for them to poop around where people are densly populated. |
| azerthoth Aug 12, 2007 9:58 AM EDT |
Trade is not how wealth is created, rather money is how trade is quantified. A person with no money and nothing to trade can still be accounted as wealthy when a full set of metrics are applied instead of the limited set that bean counters and accountants use to define what "must be real". Its much like something that was/is happening where I was living a few years ago. A bunch of people moved into a mining community, and they knew that is was such when they moved there. Suddenly though all kinds of litigation started up against the companies involved that had been operating the area in some cases for nearly a century. Why you ask? The NIMBY mentality that is so prevelant as shown by Bob's last comment (I'm not attributing that attitude as coming from Bob though). |
| pat Aug 12, 2007 10:08 AM EDT |
"Regardless of how many rats, horses, dingos, cows or vegetarians eat the grass, no matter now much each eats, the grass doesn't run out." You just go on believing that. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 12, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
> Trade is not how wealth is created Absolute bald-faced falsehood. Let's take diamonds for an example. A rock in the ground is _worthless_. Take it out of the ground, it's worth a little (edit: worth to _me_, otherwise I wouldn't do it). Trade it to a diamond broker who knows who wants it, it's worth more. Trade it to a jeweler, it's worth more. Jeweler trades it to a moviestar, it's worth a whole lot and everyone in the entire chain of trade is more wealthy for having completed the trade than if they did not. > The NIMBY mentality that is so prevelant as shown by Bob's last comment Actually, I was referring to a more profitable use of the land involved. Using open grassland for grazing cattle is more efficient than leaving it alone. Using what was marginal farmland for houses is more efficient, especially when close to population centers already (suburbia). Using rich farmland for cattle grazing is wasteful, it is more efficient to farm rich soil than to put goats on it, etc. It has nothing to do with Not In My Back Yard and everything to do with defense of private property. Which reminds me, that story about the people moving into a mining town and then throwing _legal_ force around: Why didn't the businesses and people who were already living there simply say, "It's not your property, mind your own business"? Because legal precedent has already firmly established that private property is meaningless when someone doesn't like what you are doing with your own property. Oh well, you wanted an interventionist government, don't complain when it intervenes against YOU. > You just go on believing that. Show me how copying and using F/OSS in any way depreciates the availability of F/OSS to anyone else, in any quantity, and I'll retract my statement. You did know he was talking about software, right? |
| azerthoth Aug 12, 2007 10:55 AM EDT |
Read my post again, separate your politics from your opinions, and read what I actually said. Don't however call me a liar again. 'nuff said, I wont be responding to the political troll (Bob) again. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 12, 2007 11:12 AM EDT |
I did read what you wrote. You wrote "trade is not how wealth is created". Trade is indeed how wealth is created. Not "money", not "goods", _wealth_. Money is a tool used in trade, goods are traded. Wealth is what is created by trading what is valued less for what is valued more. > Don't however call me a liar again. I don't think you're a liar. I think you are making a false statement. I would like to give you the information needed to correct this error. > political troll (Bob) Not politics. Economics. Politics is the use of coercion to achieve various goals. Economics is substantially how people interact without coercion, while also taking into account how coercion effects those interactions that would or would not otherwise happen. For instance, making marijuana illegal is a political decision. The fact that making it illegal raises its price is an economic observation. To loop back to the original article: F/OSS is a non-scarce good. By definition, my use of the product in no way diminishes your use, or anyone else's use, of it. That's why charging for it is so difficult. Successful companies that utilize F/OSS do so by leveraging the services it provides, or selling support service to F/OSS users. Yet by utilizing this non-scarce supply, we are actually all more wealthy. As the barriers to trade in this non-scarce commodity have decreased (easier installation, greater hardware compatibility, even just faster downloads) everyone's wealth has increased. If you disagree, can you tell me why? |
| jrm Aug 12, 2007 11:44 AM EDT |
> Not politics. Economics. Bob, have you ever actually taken an economics course? |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 12, 2007 12:20 PM EDT |
Yes. It was endless higher math trying to fit arbitrary models against observed trends in order to try to make quantitative predictions. Later, after the shock had worn off, I read a book about economics which actually made sense: http://www.mises.org/resources/3250 Do you disagree that politics and economics are separate things? |
| uknewbie Aug 12, 2007 3:21 PM EDT |
Bob your definitions are way off compared with mine, and I suspect many other peoples as well: "Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions" "Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services" Shamelessly cribbed off wikipeidia, but you get the point. politics is not coercion (although coercion can be employed in politics). As for your point on trade being *the* way to create wealth, I think you are being too confrontational, and somewhat narrow in your definition of “wealth”. there are plenty of ways to create wealth without trade and plenty of things one cannot trade which make one wealthy >A rock in the ground is _worthless_. Take it out of the ground, it's worth a little. You have just created wealth without trade, fairly easy really. Of course trade makes more wealth but without production trade has nothing to work with. As a student with a nice family I consider myself far wealthier than any rich and unhappy loner for despite my student debt. To disregard such intangible and un-tradeable things as friendship and esteem is to know the value of everything and the worth of nothing. Which is what I believe azerthoth was getting at. As for the separation politics and economics, there is plenty of overlap. The amount that you value goods, services your own time, ect. and even what you might find acceptable to sell are all determined in part by your political views. scuse the midnight typos |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 12, 2007 9:27 PM EDT |
> Bob your definitions are way off compared with mine, and I suspect many other peoples as well: Really? Strange, they seem pretty much identical. Shall we compare? > "Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments..." Which is exactly how I used it. The fact that "politics" is also a form of decision making in other kinds of groups that do not claim a monopoly on coercion is not the context brought up when "politics" was first used in this discussion. Determining the process by which an individual arrives at a conclusion is, in fact, most of what a discussion is. Leaving one's "decision making process" out of it would eliminate the majority of the discussions on LXer. > "Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services" So the fact that economics is an observing "science" and politics is a "decision making process" means that my assertion that they are different things is wrong...how? > there are plenty of ways to create wealth without trade and plenty of things one cannot trade which make one wealthy Ah. Then I will gladly agree, and say "economic wealth". Without trade we are all subsistence farmers living in hand-built mud huts. Welcome to a world of maybe great spiritual wealth, but since nothing is traded how would we know that? Since I was discussing economics, I meant wealth in an economic sense. Your personal sense of wealth is not an economic good. If you feel tremendously wealthy, good for you. Please pass the ketchup. > The amount that you value goods, services your own time, ect. and even what you might find acceptable to sell are all determined in part by your political views. Which is completely personal, without coercion. I can have the wildest of political views and no one need pay any attention to me what so ever. I could believe in the complete abolition of mind altering drugs, for instance, and it doesn't matter at all without the coercive power of the state behind that view. Without that coercive power, all that means is that I wouldn't buy, consume, produce nor sell psychoactive drugs. It may be a "political" view since it is how I make my decision, but its only effect is to limit my economic interactions with others, not theirs. I am not a political troll, because I am not telling other people how to live their own lives. If you wish to assert that I am a free-market economic troll, I will wear that badge with honor. Yes, indeed, I will present at any opportunity how consensual trade beats coercive interaction at every turn: in efficiency, wealth (oops, "economic" wealth) production, distribution, equity, everything. With that in mind, my decision making process being to compare the benefits of how people choose to interact as opposed to how they are compelled to interact, that is my "politics"? Sounds good. Consensual interaction without coercion. Funny, that as a "political" philosophy has a name, one which I have had opportunity to state my agreement with on LXer before: Anarchy. Too bad that word has been equated with coercion by small groups in contrast with coercion by big groups. That is not anarchy, that is chaos. But then, it serves the big coercive groups interests to discredit non-coercive interaction. And the big coercive groups run the coercive youth propaganda camps. |
| dinotrac Aug 13, 2007 3:09 AM EDT |
uknewbie -- I hear your pain and understand. Bob is an anarchist and tends to dislike law, or, as he would put it, coercion. However, that doesn't make him wrong about everything, just skewed. For instance, you don't need trade to have wealth, but 1. Trade gives you a way of realizing that you are wealthy and how wealthy you are. If you don't know you're wealthy, it is arguable that you really aren't. For example, there is an old story about American Indians selling Manhattan Island to European settlers for $24 in beads and trinkets. Forget history for a moment and let's imagine that the story is completely true and $24 dollars then is $24 today. The Indians didn't conceive of land as something that could be owned in a meaningful sense and saw no real value in the island. On the other hand, European beads and trinkest were new and very cool. Had they been active in trade wit the Europeans before, they would know that trinkets were a dime a dozen and land a valuable commodity. They possessed wealth and didn't know it. As a practical matter, they had no wealth at all because their ignorance made that wealth available to anyone who wanted to take it. As to creating wealth, labor absolutely can and does create wealth. Trade, however is required to create huge wealth. Trade lets you get things that are not immediately available. It lest you labor be used more effectively to enrich you and society.. Trad is the biggest creator of wealth. As to economics and politics, I agree that they are different things, but not separate things. They are tightly entangled. One seems unable to function without the other. |
| uknewbie Aug 13, 2007 4:56 AM EDT |
I don't feel any pain, a bit of irritation maybe, but the debate is stimulating. I have a much longer reply drafted which I may post when I am felling a bit more coherent and can type straight, maybe tomorrow. If this is getting too political I could take it to PM, what say you? |
| hkwint Aug 13, 2007 6:15 AM EDT |
Quoting:I could take it to PM, what say you? Not necessary (as long as no one is against it), these political discussions with Bob and Dino et. all. happen at LXer all the time. Also, the article was about politics and economics anyway (I believe), so it isn't that far of topic I believe. Hey Bob, I was thinking of you as a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. Was I wrong? |
| jdixon Aug 13, 2007 6:54 AM EDT |
> Hey Bob, I was thinking of you as a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. Was I wrong? Bob's an admitted anarchist. I'm the libertarian of the group (minarchist, to be specific). Dino, as he largely agrees, is more of a classical liberal (not a liberal in the modern sense, but in the sense our founding fathers were). |
| jacog Aug 13, 2007 7:17 AM EDT |
Any Puritans? |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 13, 2007 8:44 AM EDT |
> Bob's an admitted anarchist. I started as a mere rebel, then went on to classical Liberal and Libertarian. The "min-"archy just kept getting more and more "min-" as I went along, until now I simply don't see anything "good" that government (coercion) provides that is not provided more efficiently through private (voluntary) efforts. "Bads", on the other hand, are far more efficiently provided through coercion. So if folks are interested in the provision of "bads" rather than "goods", government does indeed look to be the way to go. > Any Puritans? Hahaha, please! No Puritans! One of my forebearers came over on the Mayflower, their story is one which is actually quite stimulating. Having lived in Massachusetts for a few years, I can say that the Colony never did fully overcome the Puritan motivation that somewhere, somehow, someone was having fun and that must STOP! :^) The Great Thanksgiving Hoax http://www.mises.org/story/336 A wonderful lesson in the benefits of private property compared with central planning and "communal ownership": "So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular [private ownership], and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. "The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort." ...Which, sad to say, has been the experience of every other _coercive_ commune all the way up to the depopulation of Russia in the 1920s. |
| jacog Aug 13, 2007 12:13 PM EDT |
Wow man, all that free thinking... your ancestors would have burned you at the stake for consorting with the devil. |
| jdixon Aug 13, 2007 12:33 PM EDT |
> ...until now I simply don't see anything "good" that government (coercion) provides that is not provided more efficiently through private (voluntary) efforts. While I largely agree, I don't think it's possible to go from any current system directly to an anarchy. I think a minarchy is the best we can hope for currently. Once there, we can look at things from a more rational perspective and see how practical an anarchy really is. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 13, 2007 1:12 PM EDT |
> Once there, we can look at things from a more rational perspective and see how practical an anarchy really is. Fine by me. So long as the "compromise" is that the control freaks give up some of their control, I'm in favor of it. But to allow a "compromise" to be a goal means that, once completed, the same ground has to be successfully fought for again in order to possibly achieve the next "compromise" which may very well end up being a loss (like the Patriot act). By always keeping the goal of liberty in sight, I never have to fight for the same ground twice. Let the control freaks and the polypragmatoi "compromise" for a change. They're not familiar with the concept, never having had to do so in the past. Their goal of complete control has meant that every "compromise" was merely a decrease in the loss of liberty from what they stated they were trying for this time. And the next time. And the time after that. I would have thought the experience of Neville Chamberlain would have taught the world what the result is of trying to appease someone who has no interest in your remaining free. History repeats, and repeats. |
| jrm Aug 13, 2007 1:30 PM EDT |
Re: The Great Thanksgiving Hoax IIRC, Lincoln actually had in mind fasting and not feasting. Thanksgiving was a hit-or-miss celebration until Lincoln issued a proclamation that was renewed annually until it was finally declared an official national holiday. Bob, what does the von Mises Institute think of Abraham Lincoln? |
| jdixon Aug 13, 2007 2:01 PM EDT |
> History repeats, and repeats. Yes, it does. And since the forces at work are those of human nature, I have little hope of changing things. I'm just glad that I was born into one of the better times and places in human history, and mourn its almost certain passing. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 13, 2007 5:15 PM EDT |
> I'm just glad that I was born into one of the better times and places in human history, and mourn its almost certain passing. What a phrase! Ouch! Indeed, we live at a time when it is possible to discern how wonderful things were, and could have been. I can understand how Brutus must have felt to see his Republic betrayed by his best friend, to drive him to murder. > what does the von Mises Institute think of Abraham Lincoln? While the Institute doesn't have an opinion, the professors certainly do! Two of the titles of books written by those professors are, _Lincoln Unmasked_ and _The Real Lincoln_. They held a conference a few years ago at which all the presentations had to do with "Reassessing The Presidency". All the presentations are online both as text and audio. Let me see if I can find the category... http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=26 Only two of them specifically mention Lincoln in the titles, but as Jeffrey Hummel (author of _The Real Lincoln_ I think) mentions at the start of my favorite lecture, the one about Martin van Buren, "I expected there would be a lot of Lincoln bashing at this conference, so I decided to change directions and talk about a positive president. A great president. I think, the greatest president the US has ever had." (paraphrased from memory) Martin van Buren: What Greatness Really Means http://www.mises.org/mp3/Pres/Pres11a.mp3 Here's a little tidbit that came through today on an email list I frequent: "He told me that the very first thing placed in his hands after his inauguration was a letter from Major Anderson announcing the impossibility of defending or relieving Sumter.... He himself conceived the idea, and proposed sending supplies, without an attempt to reinforce, giving notice of the fact to Governor Pickens of S.C. The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter ... it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could." ~ Senator Orville H. Browning, Lincoln's close friend for twenty years, and staunch supporter of Lincoln's dictatorship, in his daily diary that Lincoln didn't know he kept, July 3, 1861. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!