Page 1 of 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 182

Thread: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    81,131

    Default why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.

    link
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    3,664

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    TL;DR. Gimme the Cliff Notes.

    The Tragedy of the Commons is an old, and valid argument, but it requires more controls and not less, to keep people from doing what is best for only them. However, the rise of robotic automation in everyday life (you should see what Amazon is doing NOW, and it's only going to get worse) will result in massive unemployment is labor, and with AI, possibly even in the higher skilled professions. So some countries are already experimenting with... I can't recall the term.. but basically paying all citizens a minimum allowance. But to finance it? Robots don't pay taxes. And the conservatives want to eliminate business taxes. What's left? Even one of the Koch brothers abandoned the libertarian party years ago when they advocated eliminating taxes.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,781

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    As populations develop a middle class and the standard of living improves, people get better medical care and better education, they tend to have smaller families.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    81,131

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Freedom To Breed Is Intolerable

    The tragedy of the commons is involved in population problems in another way. In a world governed solely by the principle of "dog eat dog"--if indeed there ever was such a world--how many children a family had would not be a matter of public concern. Parents who bred too exuberantly would leave fewer descendants, not more, because they would be unable to care adequately for their children. David Lack and others have found that such a negative feedback demonstrably controls the fecundity of birds (11). But men are not birds, and have not acted like them for millenniums, at least.
    If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line--then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state (12), and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.
    In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement (13)? To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.
    Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some 30 nations agreed to the following (14): The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else.
    It is painful to have to deny categorically the validity of this right; denying it, one feels as uncomfortable as a resident of Salem, Massachusetts, who denied the reality of witches in the 17th century. At the present time, in liberal quarters, something like a taboo acts to inhibit criticism of the United Nations. There is a feeling that the United Nations is "our last and best hope," that we shouldn't find fault with it; we shouldn't play into the hands of the archconservatives. However, let us not forget what Robert Louis Stevenson said: "The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy." If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it is promoted by the United Nations. We should also join with Kingsley Davis (15) in attempting to get Planned Parenthood-World Population to see the error of its ways in embracing the same tragic ideal.
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    18,432

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Middle class is evaporating, if we are to believe the news.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    3,664

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    As populations develop a middle class and the standard of living improves, people get better medical care and better education, they tend to have smaller families.
    True (look at Germany in recent decades sans immigration), but still not enough after massive automation. Robotics is advancing in leaps and bounds.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    3,664

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    Freedom To Breed Is Intolerable

    The tragedy of the commons is involved in population problems in another way. In a world governed solely by the principle of "dog eat dog"--if indeed there ever was such a world--how many children a family had would not be a matter of public concern. Parents who bred too exuberantly would leave fewer descendants, not more, because they would be unable to care adequately for their children. David Lack and others have found that such a negative feedback demonstrably controls the fecundity of birds (11). But men are not birds, and have not acted like them for millenniums, at least.
    If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line--then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state (12), and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.
    In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement (13)? To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.
    Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some 30 nations agreed to the following (14): The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else.
    It is painful to have to deny categorically the validity of this right; denying it, one feels as uncomfortable as a resident of Salem, Massachusetts, who denied the reality of witches in the 17th century. At the present time, in liberal quarters, something like a taboo acts to inhibit criticism of the United Nations. There is a feeling that the United Nations is "our last and best hope," that we shouldn't find fault with it; we shouldn't play into the hands of the archconservatives. However, let us not forget what Robert Louis Stevenson said: "The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy." If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it is promoted by the United Nations. We should also join with Kingsley Davis (15) in attempting to get Planned Parenthood-World Population to see the error of its ways in embracing the same tragic ideal.
    What does Planned Parenthood have to do with this? They help reduce population growth. The rest of it seems valid, and I have also thought about this in the past. Large families in the third world are often for family labor, and increasing standard of living might help reduce the numbers. But what's your argument about that conservative family on that reality show that has 20 kids and probably pays not a cent of federal income tax? I didn't have a problem with those commie Chinese setting a birth limit of one. They needed to make changes. So reconcile the practical approach of those bad commies with the freedom of a conservative family with a high wager-earner to have 20 kids and pay no federal income tax.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,828

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.

    Yep.

    But we only have to kill the welfare state if we don't reduce the population; and if we don't, it will kill the welfare state and us along with it.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    16,937

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.

    link
    My, my, aren't YOU a gleaming ray of sunshine today!
    "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."
    --- Charles Pierce







  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,958

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    TL;DR. Gimme the Cliff Notes.

    The Tragedy of the Commons is an old, and valid argument, but it requires more controls and not less, to keep people from doing what is best for only them. However, the rise of robotic automation in everyday life (you should see what Amazon is doing NOW, and it's only going to get worse) will result in massive unemployment is labor, and with AI, possibly even in the higher skilled professions. So some countries are already experimenting with... I can't recall the term.. but basically paying all citizens a minimum allowance. But to finance it? Robots don't pay taxes. And the conservatives want to eliminate business taxes. What's left? Even one of the Koch brothers abandoned the libertarian party years ago when they advocated eliminating taxes.
    The tragedy of the commons is not a valid argument, which is why you don't hear much about Garret Hardin any more. The person who showed that's not how commons work won a Nobel in economics, even though she wasn't an economist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

    Hayek was a fan of the guaranteed income, but if the replicator economy comes about, you'll need to find a way to tax capital to make that work.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    81,131

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The tragedy of the commons is not a valid argument, which is why you don't hear much about Garret Hardin any more. The person who showed that's not how commons work won a Nobel in economics, even though she wasn't an economist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

    Hayek was a fan of the guaranteed income, but if the replicator economy comes about, you'll need to find a way to tax capital to make that work.
    Uh no. Ostrom did not debunk nor refute the tragedy of the commons. What she did do was set forth some principles in how the commons could be regulated, either voluntarily or through coercion.
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,828

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The tragedy of the commons is not a valid argument, which is why you don't hear much about Garret Hardin any more. The person who showed that's not how commons work won a Nobel in economics, even though she wasn't an economist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
    A good one. Ostrom's law: "A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory."

    As for the commons:

    Ostrom identified eight "design principles" of stable local common pool resource management:

    1. Clearly defined (clear definition of the contents of the common pool resource and effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties) . . .
    IOW GTFOOH
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Traverse City MI and Charlotte NC
    Posts
    3,110

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    Uh no. Ostrom did not debunk nor refute the tragedy of the commons. What she did do was set forth some principles in how the commons could be regulated, either voluntarily or through coercion.
    Another bungled Nobel then, eh?
    Well, Mr. Botard, do you still deny all rhinocerotic evidence?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand
    Posts
    3,886

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    As populations develop a middle class and the standard of living improves, people get better medical care and better education, they tend to have smaller families.
    There is a very strong statistical correlation with that, poor populations or those under severe stress such as war or famine breed much faster. The only way to reduce population growth is to improve the standard of living. Most developed nations are under replacement, and depend upon immigration to keep some growth happening.

    John Welsford
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand
    Posts
    3,886

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The tragedy of the commons is not a valid argument, which is why you don't hear much about Garret Hardin any more. The person who showed that's not how commons work won a Nobel in economics, even though she wasn't an economist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

    Hayek was a fan of the guaranteed income, but if the replicator economy comes about, you'll need to find a way to tax capital to make that work.
    Tax production, not profit. Profit is too easy to hide.
    A sales tax, value added or goods and services tax works.
    John Welsford
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand
    Posts
    3,886

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Here in New Zealand we have what is effectively a "universal basic income" for those 65 years old and up. No matter what you've earned, or saved or not, worked or not, have a heap of assets or other income or not, every second Monday evening there is a chunk of money in your bank account. Its enough to live on, if you're careful, and does not get taken away if you manage to earn more. It works.

    John Welsford, who's pleased to have that.
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,958

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    Uh no. Ostrom did not debunk nor refute the tragedy of the commons. What she did do was set forth some principles in how the commons could be regulated, either voluntarily or through coercion.
    Incorrect. Hardin make his argument based on a traditional herding commons, as seen in many medieval villages. He assumes the commons is ungovernable, so he essentially takes the Scrooge position:

    “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

    Here's how he makes the argument:

    If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line--then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state (12), and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.


    In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement (13)? To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.
    It is only be presuming the commons is ungovernable that he can sustain the argument. Ostrom documented the fact that commons don't work this way, and in fact functioned very well in Britain until the inclosure acts took them private (which was done to enrich the lord of the manor.)

    In essence, Hardin argued that making poverty worse would reduce population growth, which has not historically been the case. Once you make sure most children grow up, and give women control over their bodies, the problem of population growth is replaced by the problem of a shrinking workforce, pretty much the opposite of what Hardin predicted would happen with the welfare state making sure children would grow up healthy.

    Now, I realize that there are those who like to argue that even thought the empirical evidence shows he's wrong, the theory must be right, but I suspect you are not one of them.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,018

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The tragedy of the commons is not a valid argument, which is why you don't hear much about Garret Hardin any more. The person who showed that's not how commons work won a Nobel in economics, even though she wasn't an economist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
    I think it would be more fair to say that she demonstrated that the tragedy of the commons is not inevitable, by providing examples of commons where it did not occur. I don't believe she demonstrated that it never occurs, and it is trivially easy to find examples of it occurring - fish stocks being an obvious one.

    What are you doing about it?




  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    3,664

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The tragedy of the commons is not a valid argument, which is why you don't hear much about Garret Hardin any more. The person who showed that's not how commons work won a Nobel in economics, even though she wasn't an economist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

    Hayek was a fan of the guaranteed income, but if the replicator economy comes about, you'll need to find a way to tax capital to make that work.
    I read the link. Sorry, I am not usually this emotional, but what a bunch of CRAP. Yes, intelligent and thoughtful people can make common resources work. When the resources are controlled by selfish, greedy people, or even stupid people, the commons break down. An example off the top of my head is companies swooping into rural areas and for the promise of local jobs, are allowed to tap into the aquafir and pump out vastly more water than belongs to that community, to package in plastic bottles and sell at incredibly inflated prices. Or coal companies that pump similarly pristine water from the aquafir below northern Arizona to transport coal slurry in pipelines cheap, a massive waste of drinkable water.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,828

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by john welsford View Post
    There is a very strong statistical correlation with that, poor populations or those under severe stress such as war or famine breed much faster.
    And mortality along with it.

    Therefore . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by john welsford View Post
    The only way to reduce population growth is to improve the standard of living.
    Not !

    Quote Originally Posted by john welsford View Post
    Most developed nations are under replacement, and depend upon immigration to keep some growth happening.
    What kind of growth, and why would they need it?
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,958

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    I read the link. Sorry, I am not usually this emotional, but what a bunch of CRAP. Yes, intelligent and thoughtful people can make common resources work. When the resources are controlled by selfish, greedy people, or even stupid people, the commons break down. An example off the top of my head is companies swooping into rural areas and for the promise of local jobs, are allowed to tap into the aquafir and pump out vastly more water than belongs to that community, to package in plastic bottles and sell at incredibly inflated prices. Or coal companies that pump similarly pristine water from the aquafir below northern Arizona to transport coal slurry in pipelines cheap, a massive waste of drinkable water.
    So, when it's not managed as a commons, you get the problem of free riders and externalities. That's just another way of saying what I just said in post #19.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,828

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Incorrect. Hardin make his argument based on a traditional herding commons, as seen in many medieval villages. He assumes the commons is ungovernable, so he essentially takes the Scrooge position:

    [I]“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
    You say he was arguing that the commons ought to be somehow artificially maintained? Against what? Threats to it? Defended in whose interest? How is it still a commons after you start regulating?

    The commons spoken of in the OP is the theoretical future in which overpopulation is not a problem, which is supposed to support an unrestricted right to reproduce in the present. Can that commons be regulated? How? If it is, in what sense is it still the commons? If it isn't, why won't the tragedy of the commons occur?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    In essence, Hardin argued that making poverty worse would reduce population growth, which has not historically been the case.
    I must have missed that part. I took the argument to be that failure to regulate the commons would be the doom of the species. As for history, the upward side of the J curve is a poor predictor of what happens on the downward side.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Once you make sure most children grow up, and give women control over their bodies, the problem of population growth is replaced by the problem of a shrinking workforce, pretty much the opposite of what Hardin predicted would happen with the welfare state making sure children would grow up healthy.
    How is that not a problem of over-population?
    Last edited by Osborne Russell; 10-03-2017 at 02:50 PM.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pompano Beach, FLorida
    Posts
    322

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    The thesis is wrong, just flat out factually wrong. Human reproduction is easily controlled. Give women the ability to control breeding, and it stops. Or more accurately, reproduction rates drop below replacement rates. The only OECD countries with an increasing native population are Mexico and Turkey (as of 2004, they may have dropped by now). Every other OECD country will be facing the same problem as Japan to some extent, if not for immigration, which Japan hates, so they're about the worst off.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand
    Posts
    3,886

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    And mortality along with it.

    Therefore . . .



    Not !



    What kind of growth, and why would they need it?
    To keep their economies expanding. Conventional economic theory makes that neccessary.

    John Welsford
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,067

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Some folks seem to have never got past reading The Population Bomb in 1970, despite the innumerable things it got wrong.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,018

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Most of what it got wrong was timing (thanks to the Green Revolution, which has mostly played out) and its scenario stories, which were intended to be illustrative (and sensational) rather than predictive of facts. I wouldn't discount the processes it described, though; they seem to be proceeding.

    What are you doing about it?




  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pompano Beach, FLorida
    Posts
    322

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Some folks seem to have never got past reading The Population Bomb in 1970, despite the innumerable things it got wrong.
    To be fair, a lot of the things it got wrong were because the data didn't exist to show how wrong they were, and they were looking at the beginning of the baby boomers like it would be a continuing trend. In 1968, who knew women would suddenly stop getting knocked up for a generation in the US? Most people don't even realize there are more Millennials than Boomers today.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,958

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    You say he was arguing that the commons ought to be somehow artificially maintained? Against what? Threats to it? Defended in whose interest? How is it still a commons after you start regulating?

    The commons spoken of in the OP is the theoretical future in which overpopulation is not a problem, which is supposed to support an unrestricted right to reproduce in the present. Can that commons be regulated? How? If it is, in what sense is it still the commons? If it isn't, why won't the tragedy of the commons occur?
    How can a commons be regulated? My first post gave you a link to the work of Lin Ostrom, who showed how they have been regulated historically, including the sort of commons Hardin talked about in his essay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    I must have missed that part. I took the argument to be that failure to regulate the commons would be the doom of the species. As for history, the upward side of the J curve is a poor predictor of what happens on the downward side.
    It's the part of Hardin's argument referred to in the title of this thread. I quoted a couple of the relevant paragraphs in the post you were responding to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    How is that not a problem of over-population?
    I'm sorry, I must not be understanding your question. It appears that you think a shrinking workforce is a problem of over population. A shrinking workforce is a problem of the birth rate being below the replacement rate for the population. It is an endemic problem in those societies that have the sort of generous welfare state that Hardin claimed would cause overpopulation. Countries where poor families often see their children die, on the other hand, tend to have high birth rates. It is the countries that lack much of a welfare state that have the youngest and fastest growing populations. Empirically, Hardin's argument is not just wrong, but backwards of the actual situation.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,064

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    What a bunch of boloney.

    The Tragedy of Commons is a joke, IMO. One can look at history and find that the common land concept worked for centuries, largely it was never dependent on warfare and strife to keep from over-utilization. Indeed, in England, the many problems with land management occurred after enclosures occurred.
    I forget where I read it, but one should never talk of the Tragedy of Commons, one should talk of the Triumph of Commons.


    Likewise, one has to challenge the entire concept that we have a population problem, when there is no evidence to that effect.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,018

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    one should never talk of the Tragedy of Commons, one should talk of the Triumph of Commons.
    So... fish stocks are just fine, nothing to see here, move along?


    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    Likewise, one has to challenge the entire concept that we have a population problem, when there is no evidence to that effect.
    Population is the underlying driver behind every resource degradation and depletion problem, up to and including climate change, in the world today.

    What are you doing about it?




  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,828

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I'm sorry, I must not be understanding your question.
    I don't understand your contention that Garrett is wrong. About what?

    The Tragedy of the Common takes place in an unregulated commons. Garrett says so. When the commons becomes regulated, it's no longer a commons. What is he wrong about, in your view?

    In any case, it's beside the point. The commons is an analogy for the problem he is discussing. Is he wrong? Is there no problem?
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,958

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    I don't understand your contention that Garrett is wrong. About what?

    The Tragedy of the Common takes place in an unregulated commons. Garrett says so. When the commons becomes regulated, it's no longer a commons. What is he wrong about, in your view?

    In any case, it's beside the point. The commons is an analogy for the problem he is discussing. Is he wrong? Is there no problem?
    This still doesn't make sense. The historical commons he used as an example was regulated, that's what made it a commons.

    Are you still under the impression that the welfare state is responsible for overpopulation? That's the part of Hardin's argument referred to in the thread title, and in practice, the opposite seems to be the case.

    Here's the thread title: RE: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Can you justify the claim that we must kill the welfare sate in order to avoid overpopulation?

    Please explain your contention that a falling population in countries with robust welfare states casing labor shortages is a sign of overpopulation.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,958

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    So... fish stocks are just fine, nothing to see here, move along?




    Population is the underlying driver behind every resource degradation and depletion problem, up to and including climate change, in the world today.
    Where fish stocks are not managed as a commons, this is the case. Hardin claimed that the solution to the tragedy of the commons was enclosures, but as Peb points out, they were not a solution to any problem with the way commons were managed.

    From Hardin's argument:

    Every new enclosure of the commons involves the infringement of somebody's personal liberty. Infringements made in the distant past are accepted because no contemporary complains of a loss. It is the newly proposed infringements that we vigorously oppose; cries of "rights" and "freedom" fill the air. But what does "freedom" mean? When men mutually agreed to pass laws against robbing, mankind became more free, not less so. Individuals locked into the logic of the commons are free only to bring on universal ruin; once they see the necessity of mutual coercion, they become free to pursue other goals. I believe it was Hegel who said, "Freedom is the recognition of necessity."

    The most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding. No technical solution can rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all. At the moment, to avoid hard decisions many of us are tempted to propagandize for conscience and responsible parenthood. The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run, and an increase in anxiety in the short.
    Do you agree with Hardin that the welfare state causes overpopulation?

    If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line--then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state (12), and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.

    In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement (13)? To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.

    Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some 30 nations agreed to the following (14): " The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else. "
    The essay claims that we must end freedom to breed because the welfare state will cause overbreeding yet empirically, the opposite is true. Give people the resources to make sure their kids grow up, and they won't overproduce children.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,018

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Where fish stocks are not managed as a commons, this is the case.
    So the "tragedy of the commons" does, in fact, occur.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Hardin claimed that the solution to the tragedy of the commons was enclosures
    I've read Hardin, and I don't think that's entirely correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Do you agree with Hardin that the welfare state causes overpopulation?
    I think it contributes, certainly.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Give people the resources to make sure their kids grow up, and they won't overproduce children.
    Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that sufficient resources exist, particularly in the long or sustainable term, to do that for all of the people in the world, and they are continuing to overproduce children.

    What are you doing about it?




  35. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,067

    Default Re: why we must kill the welfare state and other things

    "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •