Earth Day is a time to celebrate gains we have made and create new visions to accelerate environmental progress. Earth Day is a time to unite around new actions. Earth Day and every day is a time to act to protect our planet.I do not think that there is anything wrong at all with trying to be good stewards of the environment. When I think of such things, I quickly recall the story of "The Tragedy of the Commons." I was quite surprised to learn tonight that this story is only thirty-one years old! In 1968, an article with this title was published in Science magazine by Garrett Hardin. The story basically goes like this: the common ownership of a given resource will ultimately be destroyed by the common owners if they all act in their own self-interest.
This notion was not entirely new, of course. This concept had been known to man throughout history, but this was the first time this particular name had been used for the phenomenon. It was also an escalation point for the political, economic and social awareness of the problem. The growing population of the world was becoming a concern in respect to the long-term availability of natural resources required to support humanity. This concern was also one of the focal points for the creation of Earth Day. As we all know, the debate continues today.
But, over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle said:
That all persons call the same thing mine in the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing, but it is impracticable; or if the words are taken in the other sense, such a unity in no way conduces to harmony. And there is another objection to the proposal. For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few.We should be mindful to heed the words of Aristotle today. He recognized the rational self-interest in human action and the peril it causes in common ownership. Certainly the degree of peril increases as the population of the "common" increases; this follows from the decreasing share of ownership of a given individual which must have inverse correlation with self-interest in the use of the resource.
How do we overcome the tragedy of the commons? Some would argue that regulation by a leader on behalf of the ownership is the answer. Simply implement rules on the use of the commons. This leads to concerns. Who will be the leader? How does the ownership population become satisfied that the leader is acting in the best interest of the collective? Will there be special favors? How are the rules enforced? Will force be necessary to do so?
In cases of large common ownership, it is the state that usually fills the role as leader. The questions mentioned above are still all valid. Unfortunately, the larger the common ownership and the more valuable the resource, the more difficult it is to regulate in a fair, effective and efficient manner. And, of course, this also increases the likelihood of non-compliance by individuals in the ownership population. It is the state who can step in with force to curb the rights of the non-compliant individuals and/or punish them in some other form. It should be self-evident that the probability of corruption also increases as the constituency grows.
I propose a different path. We should strive to eliminate common ownership. As Aristotle noted, private ownership will lead to the best stewardship of the resource. Yes, there will be some failures, but, on the whole, results will be better. I can hear my green-minded friends asking, "what about the Earth or the environment as a whole?" Great question. Admittedly, I have no perfect answer. However, significant steps could be taken which may mitigate the concerns expressed.
First, private property rights could extend below the ground and into the atmosphere. With rigorous protection of private property enforced, but not infringed upon, by the state, we could make advances in protecting against groundwater waste and other runoff as well as airborne pollutants. Second, property rights to waterways and other common lands could be sold off in auctions. Alternatively (or in addition to), common ownership could be reduced to smaller, more community-based ownership structures. Finally, common resources such as international waters could similarly be auctioned or partitioned.
These are just a few ideas and I am by no means an expert on this subject. However, I do believe there are practical, pro-market, and pro-environment solutions to the tragedy of the commons. These thoughts are also consistent with my personal views on governance which are outlined in "Individual Liberty and Local Government" where I introduced my pyramid of governance.
The notion of private property extending from the land to the sky was clearly violated with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 where property owners were prohibited from hunting certain bird species while flying overhead. (Again, I am not an expert here and did not research this any further to determine if this was the first such violation of the notional definition.) Incidentally, the State of Missouri sued the U.S. Government over this act in a case that went to the Supreme Court. The case was Missouri v. Holland with Missouri asserting that the treaty violated the 10th Amendment. Missouri lost with Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes delivering his opinion that the U.S. Constitution is a "living document".
Ok - so, Happy Earth Day! I want to leave you with a homework assignment. Reflect on resources (goods, services, bank accounts, land, public health, air, etc.) which have common ownership in your life. Putting political ideology aside, think about what works well and what does not in these situations of common ownership. Now... what can be applied from your experiences to the tragedy of the commons?
No comments:
Post a Comment