Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 105 of 182

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

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    5,694

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    This is also an excellent argument for egalitarian social policies; if wealth is concentrated, more people will have little enough that they breed faster.
    I think there are much better arguments for differences in breeding rates.

    As for your argument. It seems reasonable to compare birth rates based on income. You did not do that. You took statistics, combined them in an improper manner, and drew invalid conclusions. But that is your argument.
    Life is complex.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    True, they don't have enough brains to manage the self-delusion. Cruelty, sure, in spades.
    That would be anomalous. But I suppose if they're wicked as well as troublesome, they deserve to be crushed by bulldozers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    You are about as wrong about carrying capacity as it's possible to be. There's no doubt an upper limit, but below that, it depends entirely on how we make our livings, which depends on what we know and can do.
    You seem to be speaking of the carrying capacity for humans, regardless of the effects on any other life. Maybe that artificial restriction has an analytical purpose in some narrow context. As part of a world view, it's only natural when just about every resource you use comes from elsewhere, someplace where people produce it cheaply because their labor is cheap because there are so many of them because prosperity isn't interfering with their fertility. Keeps things cheap for us, keeps them breeding, keeps them working.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    And you are resolutely ignoring the evidence that human beings reproduce faster when their lives are miserable and dangerous, and control their fertility when their lives are safe and comfortable.
    And yet the population explodes, even though their mortality is higher. I'm not ignoring the evidence of the effect of security, in fact in the context of the ethical arguments I think it's important. But it's not the most important cause of overpopulation or the cure.

    If fertility is supposed to bring security, but it doesn't, why keep breeding? Obviously, it's a matter of expectations, and of course let's not forget religion, right down to its fundamental level, the moral relation of man to nature.

    If expectations are where the action is, that's where action must be taken. Is the welfare state going to depend on prosperity to avoid over-population? Where is that prosperity going to come from? From exploitation of the earth and of humans.

    Meanwhile, it's telling people that over-population is not a problem. It's an untenable posture, practically and morally.
    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?

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    It is interesting to note that as people become better educated, less anxious about their survival, and eat better, etc. , they breed less AND vote more progressive.
    But they draw the line at anything with a whiff of intentional population reduction, as the article in the OP points out. They insist there are technical solutions. The article says no.

    The textbook example was the split in the Sierra Club when one faction wanted to advocate the limitation of immigration. They got called racists, etc. They lost, and environmentalists have been forced ever since to accommodate the population delusion. Ironically non-progressives i.e. Reds also have to be careful, in their case, not let their desire to limit immigration lead them into making population arguments.

    And of course, as this sheboing goes on and on, the population grows and grows.
    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?

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,074

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

    They insist there are technical solutions. The article says no.
    No 'technical fixes'? Again, there are three alternatives that have been shown to work:

    1. State coercion, like China.
    2. Increased death rates.
    3. Voluntarily decreased fertility through prosperity, education, and readily-available birth control.

    Is the latter a 'technical fix'?

    If fertility is supposed to bring security, but it doesn't, why keep breeding?
    We're hard-wired for it. It has nothing to do with the security of the individual, and everything to do with the possibility of survival of his or her genes. More kids, maybe a few of them will survive.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    But they draw the line at anything with a whiff of intentional population reduction, as the article in the OP points out. They insist there are technical solutions. The article says no.

    The textbook example was the split in the Sierra Club when one faction wanted to advocate the limitation of immigration. They got called racists, etc. They lost, and environmentalists have been forced ever since to accommodate the population delusion. Ironically non-progressives i.e. Reds also have to be careful, in their case, not let their desire to limit immigration lead them into making population arguments.

    And of course, as this sheboing goes on and on, the population grows and grows.
    Why do you choose to believe the article in the OP? It was written in 1968, and Keith and I have shown you that Hardin's claims are not born out empirically. Personally, when the evidence changes, my opinion changes. How does that work for you?

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,074

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

    Things have changed since 1968, and we've learned more.

    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 10-09-2017 at 03:41 PM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    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.
    If the historical commons worked so well, how come they went away?
    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?

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,074

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    If the historical commons worked so well, how come they went away?
    Those who had the power figured they could make more money without them.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    If the historical commons worked so well, how come they went away?
    Textiles & the agricultural revolution.

    With increased demand for wool, the local lairds decided to take the commons away so they could graze sheep on them. There were also new methods of farming that could raise yields and required less labor.

    Remember Jethro Tull? He wrote a sexy little number called The new horse-houghing husbandry, or, An essay on the principles of tillage and vegetation wherein is shewn, a method of introducing a sort of vineyard-culture into the corn-fields, to increase their product, and diminish the common expence, by the use of instruments lately invented by Jethro Tull, back in 1731. That was close to the beginning of the revolution, and he later had a band named after him, probably because the band members had been reading about the Inclosure Acts. In 1845, a final Inclosure Act made it possible to enclose commons without parliamentary action.

    From Wikipedia:

    The tenants displaced by the process often left the countryside to work in the towns. The greater availability of food caused population numbers to rapidly expand, which meant that within a few generations, the compensation the tenants had received was spread so thinly among their descendants that many found themselves in penury.[citation needed] This made the industrial revolution possible – at the very moment new technological advances required large numbers of workers, a concentration of large numbers of people in need of work had emerged, together with a food supply productive enough to ensure the workers had the necessary energy; the former country tenants and their descendants became workers in industrial factories within cities[6].
    Population growth slowed once the welfare state gave people more security. National pension schemes helped with this, because older workers could be supported by younger workers even if they didn't have children. That's one of the major incentives Hardin missed.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

    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.
    It the commons in question was of a certain character, if the the stakeholders were of a certain disposition, if the government backed it . . . a S load of ifs.

    So, contrary to what John asserts, she did not deny the tragedy of the commons as presented by Garrett Hardin. On the contrary, she recognized it. She simply said you can do the enclosing right, if you're careful, in a limited class of cases.

    I have no quarrel with the argument that dividing a commons and assigning individual property rights enhances efficiency in many situations (see, for example, Feeny, 1982). Similarly, I have no quarrel with the argument that administering some resources through central‑government authority may avoid the tragedy of overuse in other situations. I do take issue with the presumption that either central‑government administration or private property rights is "the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons."

    The most important substantive lesson to be learned from these four cases is that it is possible for individuals facing a Commons Dilemma in natural settings to design their own institutional arrangements that change the very structure of the situation in which they find themselves.

    (emphasis in original)

    -- HOW INEXORABLE IS THE "TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS”? INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL DILEMMAS

    By Elinor Ostrom

    http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/H205/Commons.htm
    By changing the structure she means some body sanctioned by the government but not under its control except as to broad contours. Like a corporation. You can call it what you want to, if it happens, it's the end of the commons; and if you do nothing, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. IOW, the commons causes a tragedy. It's called the tragedy of the commons.
    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?

  11. #81
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    It the commons in question was of a certain character, if the the stakeholders were of a certain disposition, if the government backed it . . . a S load of ifs.

    So, contrary to what John asserts, she did not deny the tragedy of the commons as presented by Garrett Hardin. On the contrary, she recognized it. She simply said you can do the enclosing right, if you're careful, in a limited class of cases.



    By changing the structure she means some body sanctioned by the government but not under its control except as to broad contours. Like a corporation. You can call it what you want to, if it happens, it's the end of the commons; and if you do nothing, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. IOW, the commons causes a tragedy. It's called the tragedy of the commons.
    I've already responded to this. I get the feeling you haven't read the whole thread.

    Hardin claimed he was describing the historical commons. A commons is property held in common. He did not understand that property can be held in common and properly managed. Like you, he seems to have assumed that the commons disappeared because they didn't work, because he did not study the history involved. He was wrong about the nature of the historical commons and about the incentives in the welfare state. As a result, he prescribed solutions that didn't deal with the actual problems.

  12. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Man, you're getting ornery. Look, we disagree less than you might think. I don't want a planet 100% devoted to feeding humans either, and I think it's much better to have whales and elephants and intact wild ecosystems.
    Every time there's a hard choice to be made we are supposed to be content with assurances. The destruction continues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    AFAIK, there are only three proven ways that you can get humans not to reproduce to excess:

    1. Totalitarian state power; China's one-child policy or something similar.
    2. High death rates - starvation, war, and disease. This is what kept populations low for most of our history, and appears to be what you are advocating by calling for eliminating the 'welfare state.' This is what I am objecting to.
    3. Prosperity, education, and readily-available birth control and abortion. When people have relatively safe and comfortable lives, they have fewer children voluntarily.

    I don't know of any other way to do it. Do you? I prefer #3.
    Expansions of #3. How are you educating them to have fewer children? What are you telling them? Anti-growth. The Reds object. Now what?

    Killing the welfare state seems over-stated until you consider that many if not most consider the freedom to breed to be its most fundamental feature. They could drop that, even repudiate it, and there could still be a welfare state. Why don't they?
    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. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,074

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

    The Reds object. Now what?
    Well, since in their current hysterical state, they object to almost everything that is good and decent and human, are you surprised? Many of them appear to be operating out of a view of the world developed by middle eastern goat herders 4000 years ago, which might have worked then, but doesn't anymore. We sure as hell aren't going to make much progress in this area while they're in power. (I presume you mean new-style 'reds' like Mike Pence, not old-style reds like Lenin.)
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  14. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Every time there's a hard choice to be made we are supposed to be content with assurances. The destruction continues.



    Expansions of #3. How are you educating them to have fewer children? What are you telling them? Anti-growth. The Reds object. Now what?

    Killing the welfare state seems over-stated until you consider that many if not most consider the freedom to breed to be its most fundamental feature. They could drop that, even repudiate it, and there could still be a welfare state. Why don't they?
    Freedom to breed has never been part of the welfare state, it has been advocated as a basic human right. How do we deal with a world where that right is respected? The welfare state is a solution.

  15. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,074

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

    If one does not accept freedom to reproduce as a basic human right, we're left with #1: restricting fertility through the power of the state. It can be done. One can make an argument that it's better than the alternatives; that's what the Chinese calculated, and it sort of kinda worked. Osborne, is that what you're advocating?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  16. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    876

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    If one does not accept freedom to reproduce as a basic human right, we're left with #1: restricting fertility through the power of the state. It can be done. One can make an argument that it's better than the alternatives; that's what the Chinese calculated, and it sort of kinda worked. Osborne, is that what you're advocating?


    i wonder what the "reduce procreation" crowd would do when they succeeded? let's reduce the replacement population by half... oh crap! how are half the people going to pay for all of our old butts' medicare, ss, etc! can you even imagine the total social fallout? you would have to make some DRAMATIC changes to all of the social services if you wanted to implement a plan to reduce the population. who is going to be there to work in your nursing homes? want us to just throw you in the furnace to speed up the population reduction?

  17. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,025

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    let's reduce the replacement population by half... oh crap! how are half the people going to pay for all of our old butts' medicare, ss, etc!
    What a lovely strawman you've built. Did you think that up by yourself, or did you have help?

    The absolute value of the rate of change in population is about as important as the direction... and believe it or not, many of the people who are concerned about the direction are also aware of the implications of the rate. I've never heard anyone advocate a crash program to reduce the human population; it would be sufficient to give each human being the right to share in the conception and bringing to term of two new human beings, said right to be fully and irrevocably transferable on voluntary receipt of payment at the going market rate.

    Crash programs are the old-fashioned natural solution to overpopulation... and if we don't learn to manage our fertility, nature will most assuredly manage our mortality.

    What are you doing about it?




  18. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    What a lovely strawman you've built. Did you think that up by yourself, or did you have help?

    The absolute value of the rate of change in population is about as important as the direction... and believe it or not, many of the people who are concerned about the direction are also aware of the implications of the rate. I've never heard anyone advocate a crash program to reduce the human population; it would be sufficient to give each human being the right to share in the conception and bringing to term of two new human beings, said right to be fully and irrevocably transferable on voluntary receipt of payment at the going market rate.

    Crash programs are the old-fashioned natural solution to overpopulation... and if we don't learn to manage our fertility, nature will most assuredly manage our mortality.
    We are learning, but some people can't see it.

  19. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    876

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    What a lovely strawman you've built. Did you think that up by yourself, or did you have help?

    The absolute value of the rate of change in population is about as important as the direction... and believe it or not, many of the people who are concerned about the direction are also aware of the implications of the rate. I've never heard anyone advocate a crash program to reduce the human population; it would be sufficient to give each human being the right to share in the conception and bringing to term of two new human beings, said right to be fully and irrevocably transferable on voluntary receipt of payment at the going market rate.

    Crash programs are the old-fashioned natural solution to overpopulation... and if we don't learn to manage our fertility, nature will most assuredly manage our mortality.

    if that's the limits of your civility, MOUT.

  20. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,074

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

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    We are learning, but some people can't see it.
    Definitely learning. Whether we're learning fast enough, hard to tell. The 'restrict birth control' religious crowd aren't helping at all. One more time:



    give each human being the right to share in the conception and bringing to term of two new human beings, said right to be fully and irrevocably transferable on voluntary receipt of payment at the going market rate.
    Um - are you really trying to develop a eugenics program so that the rich are more likely to pass on their genes? Seriously?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  21. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,025

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Um - are you really trying to develop a eugenics program so that the rich are more likely to pass on their genes? Seriously?
    Well, it's not like people would be forced to give up their rights; it would be strictly voluntary, but economically incented. If you can think of a better mechanism to provide a fair initial allocation of limited reproduction rights and fair compensation for those who don't mind giving theirs up, I'm all ears. I suppose some sort of blind auction mechanism might work, but the math is more complicated than I want to think about at the moment.

    What are you doing about it?




  22. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,025

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

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    We are learning, but some people can't see it.
    I haven't seen the global population reduce itself to a sustainable level, or even start heading in that direction. I'll believe we're learning when I see it.

    What are you doing about it?




  23. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    One could argue that educated or rich people believe there is a different carrying capacity than uneducated or poor people.
    Uneducated people, in industrial society, are unlikely to know what it means. So it's the difference between an estimate and no estimate. Between zero and 1.
    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?

  24. #94
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    I haven't seen the global population reduce itself to a sustainable level, or even start heading in that direction. I'll believe we're learning when I see it.
    See post 90. We are headed in the right direction.

    Current projections have us reaching peak population this century, and leveling out somewhere below 10 billion.



    http://www.acegeography.com/the-grow...opulation.html

    Here's a closer look at the rate of increase, which peaked in the mid-1990s:


  25. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,074

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

    Not to be too optimistic, those projections are a LONG way out, and 10 billion is still a hell of a lot of people. But the trends are in the right direction.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  26. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,025

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

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    See post 90. We are headed in the right direction.
    Um... no, we're not, because the world's population is still growing. "Headed in the right direction" would be when the world's population starts to, you know, actually shrink.

    The rate of change may be headed in the right direction, but it isn't where it should be.

    What are you doing about it?




  27. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I've already responded to this. I get the feeling you haven't read the whole thread.

    Hardin claimed he was describing the historical commons. A commons is property held in common. He did not understand that property can be held in common and properly managed. Like you, he seems to have assumed that the commons disappeared because they didn't work, because he did not study the history involved. He was wrong about the nature of the historical commons and about the incentives in the welfare state. As a result, he prescribed solutions that didn't deal with the actual problems.
    You seriously mis-state his case. Paul called you on it; you didn't respond. That would have been something to read.

    This is particularly inaccurate, not to mention absurd on its face:

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    He did not understand that property can be held in common and properly managed . . . He assumes the commons is ungovernable . . . It is only be presuming the commons is ungovernable that he can sustain the argument.
    Whereas he plainly says:

    With real estate and other material goods, the alternative we have chosen is the institution of private property coupled with legal inheritance.
    He's narrowing his hypothesis to the ungoverned commons. You seem to think that if he doesn't recount the history of cows in England, the hypothesis harbors a fatal defect of historical understanding. No doubt the details are interesting, but nothing you've said indicates that they're relevant.

    You also drastically overstate Ms. Ostrum's argument. She was careful to limit her theses to certain types of commons. She recognized instances of the commons in the real world commons which didn't fit. You seem to think that anything that doesn't closely match your definition of "the commons" in England is for that reason based on false facts. And your definition is artificially narrow.

    The only facts relevant to the inquiry are clearly stated:

    The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all.
    He's narrowing his hypothesis to the ungoverned commons. The dynamics apply to any fishery, the Grand Banks being the most famous example. It applies to air. It applies to breeding. It applies to anything not owned or otherwise governed, ownership, for these purposes, being of course only a mode of governance. For a while anyone takes anything they can take. Little by little government creeps in. The rest is circumstance.

    Nothing Ostrum says omits the role of government, in fact, she insists on it. She has no desire for arbitrary constraints. As I pointed out, quoting her, but you apparently did not read:

    HOW INEXORABLE IS THE "TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS”? INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHANGINGTHE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL DILEMMAS

    By Elinor Ostrom

    http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/H205/Commons.htm

    I have no quarrel with the argument that dividing a commons and assigning individual property rights enhances efficiency in many situations (see, for example, Feeny, 1982). Similarly, I have no quarrel with the argument that administering some resources through central-government authority may avoid the tragedy of overuse in other situations. I do take issue with the presumption that either central-government administration or private property rights is "the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons."
    Even within the limits she imposes on herself, which you reject, it's a matter of argument by authority; neologism and jargon.


    I do take issue with the presumption that either central-government administration or private property rights is "the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons."

    -- ibid
    But the supposed third way she points do is just another mode of governing, helpless and useless without the coercive power of the state. She points to groundwater management districts . . . as if. It's government.

    She summarized the conditions in the form of eight core design principles: 1) Clearly defined boundaries; 2) Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs; 3) Collective choice arrangements; 4) Monitoring; 5) Graduated sanctions; 6) Fast and fair conflict resolution; 7) Local autonomy; 8) Appropriate relations with other tiers of rule-making authority (polycentric governance). This work was so groundbreaking that Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2009.

    http://evonomics.com/tragedy-of-the-...elinor-ostrom/
    All eight are dependent on government backing, meaning, physical force. No Trespassing, this is not commons, this is ours.
    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?

  28. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    You seriously mis-state his case. Paul called you on it; you didn't respond. That would have been something to read.
    I responded to Paul directly in post #17. You obviously couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread in order to get your facts straight. My respect for you is rapidly declining. If you can't make your case without making untrue statements about me, you obviously don't have a case. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to remain civil to a man who makes untrue statements about me. I do not accuse you of lying, because I think you simply haven't made a good-faith effort to determine the truth before making this false statement.

    The Ostrom quote you supplied doesn't support your position. You don't understand that because you don't even know what property is, let alone property held in common.

    A thing isn't property if there are no rules about its use. That's because property isn't objects, it's a set of rules about how we use objects. Hardin argues that we must have either private property or coercion about fertility. He does not consider the possibility that property held in common can be properly managed. Ostrom demonstrated that property held in common is not necessarily badly managed, indicating an alternative Hardin did not consider even worth discussing might actually be the answer.

    Before you respond to this, please read the entire thread so that you don't make more false statements about me. It is really not okay to behave that way.

  29. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    I suppose technically you responded. The response was so huge a misrepresentation of Hardin's argument that I didn't consider it as such. You say Hardin says the commons is ungovernable. He doesn't. If that were what he thought, why would he write the article? To propose what? Fatalism?
    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?

  30. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    I haven't seen the global population reduce itself to a sustainable level, or even start heading in that direction. I'll believe we're learning when I see it.
    Your house is burning down faster and faster, but the rate of increase is decreasing. Soon the increase will stop and it will burn down ever more slowly. These are hard numbers which do not lie.
    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?

  31. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,074

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

    Osborne compares the human species to a house fire. And extinguishing the fire completely is the only rational course if your house is burning.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  32. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The Ostrom quote you supplied doesn't support your position.
    My position is that you misrepresent what she says. Her own words are the strongest possible evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    You don't understand that because you don't even know what property is, let alone property held in common.
    Left field.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    A thing isn't property if there are no rules about its use. That's because property isn't objects, it's a set of rules about how we use objects.
    No fooling?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Hardin argues that we must have either private property or coercion about fertility. He does not consider the possibility that property held in common can be properly managed.
    He says it is in fact managed, albeit imperfectly. That means it can be managed "properly". That means you are misrepresenting what he says.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Ostrom demonstrated that property held in common is not necessarily badly managed, indicating an alternative Hardin did not consider even worth discussing might actually be the answer.
    Any number of factors may combine to make abuse profitable or unprofitable. Factors may come and go, but one of those factors is constant: the motivation to abuse. When it becomes profitable, abuse will occur. Abuse is controlled by coercion. That is what he is asking us to consider. You say he's not considering it. Remarkable.
    Last edited by Osborne Russell; 10-11-2017 at 02:27 PM. Reason: what SHE says
    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?

  33. #103
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Osborne compares the human species to a house fire. And extinguishing the fire completely is the only rational course if your house is burning.
    I'm analogizing the slowdown-in-fertility-as-the-answer-to-overpopulation to a house fire. But the analogy extends to the species, if by the species you mean its impact. Burning down the house, isn't that pretty close to the premise of anthropogenic climate change?
    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?

  34. #104
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    21,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    I suppose technically you responded. The response was so huge a misrepresentation of Hardin's argument that I didn't consider it as such. You say Hardin says the commons is ungovernable. He doesn't. If that were what he thought, why would he write the article? To propose what? Fatalism?
    Technically nothing. I responded and you claimed I hadn't, and now you make excuses instead of acknowledging the error. As to why Hardin wrote the article, it was to propose that we should not view procreation as a right, but should limit it, by "coercion" (force) if necessary. It now appears you didn't even read the title of the thread.

    Post 102 is incoherent. You say:
    My position is that you misrepresent what you say. Her own words are the strongest possible evidence.
    You now appear to by accusing me of lying about what I've said. Osborne, I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you continue to make accusations against me that don't make sense. I'm beginning to wonder why I'm even talking to you.
    Last edited by johnw; 10-11-2017 at 02:26 PM.

  35. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Technically nothing. I responded and you claimed I hadn't, and now you make excuses instead of acknowledging the error.
    You're right, you responded, so it would be overbroad to say you didn't, and I apologize for that. I just don't consider it to be a substantive response because you misrepresent what Hardin says. It was an answer to a question not posed.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    As to why Hardin wrote the article, it was to propose that we should not view procreation as a right, but should limit it, by "coercion" (force) if necessary. It now appears you didn't even read the title of the thread.
    If he believes it can be limited, as he must if that is the very thing he is proposing, then he believes it can be governed. How the thread title bears on this is a mystery to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    You now appear to by accusing me of lying about what I've said. Osborne, I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you continue to make accusations against me that don't make sense. I'm beginning to wonder why I'm even talking to you.
    You were going to explain where Hardin "assumes that the commons is ungovernable" . . . in making his argument that it ought to be governed.
    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?

Posting Permissions

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