Tragedy of the Commons taught at University

[Mister Mister]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/baltimore-insider-blog/bal-umd-tragedy-of-the-commons-tweet-goes-viral-20150709-htmlstory.html

Also kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma

[thebeardslastcall]

I would have totally gone for the 6 points. If you choose 6 and the points are given you get a 4 point advantage over most of the class. If you choose 2 and get the points you get a 4 point disadvantage against some people and no advantage against the rest. If you get no points then it's a level playing field, no advantage or disadvantage against any classmates. Relative to your classmates this is the best option. The only advantage of going for 2 is if you need some non-relative score to do better overall somehow, but frankly I wouldn't care about that as these are "bonus" points. Competitively speaking the top performers in the class may even want the lesser performers to not get the points to prevent future competition from them and would also be less likely to need the points.

 

I'm not even sure this cleanly fits into tragedy of the commons in that I don't view this as a loss overall by people not getting the points. It's not as clear cut as situations of an overall inhibition or reduction of real wealth. They aren't any less qualified in the field due to their not getting the points, so it's just a competition thing as I see it. Tragedy of commons doesn't quite apply to such zero sum or competition games. It's more for situations where resources are diminished, like by over-fishing leading to less fish resources later.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Why can't market advocates realize that the tragedy of the commons is an example of the self destructive nature of for-profit market competition?

 

Imagine the test paper represented a block of privately owned farmland. One can either choose to overwork the land for a 6 point yield, or sustainably manage for 2 points. Overworking of more than 10% of the land at any given time will lead to massive erosion turning the region into a dustbowl. Which option do you choose when under the duress of market survival?

[Slavik]

Why can't market advocates realize that the tragedy of the commons is an example of the self destructive nature of for-profit market competition?

 

Imagine the test paper represented a block of privately owned farmland. One can either choose to overwork the land for a 6 point yield, or sustainably manage for 2 points. Overworking of more than 10% of the land at any given time will lead to massive erosion turning the region into a dustbowl. Which option do you choose when under the duress of market survival?

I choose sustainability, because I am the one who owns the land, and I know that I need it for much longer than just few seasons.  This example can be seen in lumber business, you have people planting trees as a crop all around the globe (where they can sell it on the market) and then on the other hand you have rain forests being cut out, because its the government who owns the land (AKA no one owns it).  The examples of predation in "publicly" owned places is all over the world.  USSR has drained and destroyed rivers, poisoned lands, over-hunted, over-fished, overproduced and so on.     

[Mister Mister]

I'm not sure exactly the point you're trying to make.  Farmland which is privately owned doesn't really apply to the example, depleting your own resources doesn't deplete your neighbor's, if it is agreed upon beforehand who owns what.  Erosion is an example of externalities, which are not dealt with well, or at all in the present.  Common Law had a history of dealing with this kind of stuff well, without the need for extra laws, regulations, and bureaucracies.

I don't know what "under the duress of market survival" means.  Survival is a fact of Nature.  Under duress implies that someone is threatening you.  So it seems like a loaded term to me.  But the reality is that when people own things in perpetuity, they have greater incentive to balance consumption in the present, with preservation for the future.  An example is how privately owned timber forests are well maintained, whereas National Forests which are leased out temporarily to private loggers, get clear-cut.  Another example is the Cod supply in Nova Scotia, which Stef wrote an article on, called "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish", which was maintained for hundreds of years by the local population, but when the government took over, it was depleted in a few short decades.  Can you think of an historical example to the contrary?

Also, since I didn't get an answer in the thread about the comic strip, can I ask what is your relation to wealth and poverty and to market competition?

[thebeardslastcall]

Why can't market advocates realize that the tragedy of the commons is an example of the self destructive nature of for-profit market competition?

 

Imagine the test paper represented a block of privately owned farmland. One can either choose to overwork the land for a 6 point yield, or sustainably manage for 2 points. Overworking of more than 10% of the land at any given time will lead to massive erosion turning the region into a dustbowl. Which option do you choose when under the duress of market survival?

Tragedy of the commons is often the result of public or semi-public resources, not private resources. When private companies try to work together they get punished by governments for "price fixing" and "being a monopoly" and other stuff that prevents them from working together. Like with the example of over-fishing or farmland, if you own the land yourself you can prevent it from being abused and farm it sustainably and would have no reason to overwork it.

 

When you share or lease the land or water you have good reason to abuse it and suffer from the tragedy of the commons problem, because by removing proper ownership you remove long-term incentives. Also lots of people are pushed to over farm their land in the current environment because the government is subsidizing farmers and essentially corrupting the market by keeping toxic and ill performing farmers in the market and promoting excess production. Many farmers can only do this because they have been subsidized and otherwise these practices would lead them to fail and then the market would recover, leaving only the healthy farmers. It's often government interference that prevents sustainable markets. Farmer subsidies are awful for farmers that wish to do it sustainably and profitably. Many farmers in the US aren't failing and in debt because of insufficient subsidies, but because of excessive subsidies.

 

If a company lowers their prices to try to keep out a competitor this is costly and can't be sustained, but if there are massive subsidies infused into the market the company can keep up this practice for extended periods leading to practices that are essentially otherwise not profitable.

 

I'd wager they'd get more people voting for the lower option if it was $20 dollars vs $100 or even higher stakes. Especially if they knew of the past failures and how risky choosing the higher option was.

 

I'm not saying the tragedy of the commons problem doesn't exist in a free market, but in a truly free market I think the problem would come up less often and people would have better ways of dealing with the problem. One of the greatest tools of a free market is voluntary association. This is not allowed in today's society, whereby if you try to exercise your right to deny customers or hire and fire people on voluntary terms you can get sued for discrimination and other crap. The government has made free trade highly illegal and teaches everyone to be irresponsible and to lean on the government to get whatever they want to try to forcefully "solve" these problems instead of teaching people how to take personal responsibility towards solving many of these issues.

 

Private property is formally regulated by the owner. Public property is competitively "regulated" by everyone, which includes "private" property under government thumb.

 

Just think about how many animals, without governments, learned to live sustainably with their environment because to do otherwise was death. Humans defy this problem by centralizing and globalizing the debt to prevent local corrections. These general tendencies also help lead to global pollution and destruction as well as people are incentivized towards irresponsible behaviors and the fabric of communities is destroyed by national collectivism.

 

 

[Pepin]

That's pretty interesting. Certainly an effective way to demonstrate the concept.

 

If I was the teacher, I think I'd experiment with the numbers to see what would be needed to get a particular result. 

[MrCapitalism]

Which option do you choose when under the duress of market survival?

 

 

I don't know, how much can I get for it when I sell it?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Why can't market advocates realize that the tragedy of the commons is an example of the self destructive nature of for-profit market competition?

 

Imagine the test paper represented a block of privately owned farmland. One can either choose to overwork the land for a 6 point yield, or sustainably manage for 2 points. Overworking of more than 10% of the land at any given time will lead to massive erosion turning the region into a dustbowl. Which option do you choose when under the duress of market survival?

As you would own the the property you'd have an incentive to maintain it's value. If you overwork it then you only survive in the short term and eventually you destroy your farm. The profit would likely be less than if you just sold the farm to someone who could run it better. Also your scenario exists in a vacuum because in the free market there are all sorts of traditions and contracts that prevent these things.

Under communism the farmer would not really own his farm (it would ultimately belong to "the workers" and he may have to give some of it to "the entitled") so he would have little incentive to maintain it. It's a fact that humans take much less care of what they do not own. 

So the tragedy of the commons is NOT an example of market competition. It is an example of collectivism. The commons.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Maybe public property utilized for individual gain is worse than an exclusively private system of property. I am arguing that market economies under a system of private property (ratcheting effect) cannot deal with, and are actually encouraged to externalize costs. Externalization of cost is the driving motive behind the tragedy of the commons.

 

There exists no reasonable way in dealing with externalities under capitalism. Suppose my company produces toxic chemicals which leach into a river and then into the ocean. Perhaps the factory below me might seek damages. They could conduct a study, determine the source and damage of the toxic substance, and receive full recompense. But what of the fisherman on the coast? He would have to conduct a study tracing the chemicals back 100's of km to the source, providing extensive evidence of ocean patterns and of the dispersal of the substance, making samples as he went. He would have to ascertain the damage done to the species of animal his profits were contingent on, and provide evidence of his probable financial losses. Suppose there existed several such companies in proximity, how would our poor fisherman ascertain by whom and in what amounts he was injured amongst them. He would be asked to show conclusive evidence of whom and in what amount were responsible, which given the complexity may be unobtainable, to demonstrate via longitudinal study the effects on his property of this chemical, and to rule out entirely any confounding variables. He would have to do this on a peasants income. He cannot receive compensation in a general lawsuit because any defendant might cast doubt that the individual was really effected, and would ask for evidence nothing less than what I have discussed above. On top of this, should he fail to provide such conclusive evidence and his case found insufficient, he would be required to pay the full costs of the defendant, who by virtue of their economic standing could leverage huge sums and conduct counter studies disproving or casting doubt on the claims of the accuser. Should he actually win after all this he would likely only be paid for the costs of his case and for damages caused. This might be millions in case and research fees, but he himself might get only one years salary of a fisherman, a paltry sum for him. Law companies would never take on such cases as his chances of winning might be extremely low, and they are in the business of making profit. Should he lose he could never pay them, presuming anyone would lend him the capital to hire them anyway.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Market competition is a form of duress. If I decide to stop accumulating capital I will go out of business, I will be swallowed by the market. This is why it is called competition.

 

I have yet to see a market participant who does not external costs. Such externalities becomes a necessity of competitive advantage. Global warming due to carbon emissions is the largest example of the tragedy of the commons we have. It is directly facilitated by the necessity of externalizing costs. You will need to provide compelling evidence why private property would lead to complete internalization, a real world example would be good.

 

My relation to wealth and poverty is that of every working class person. I am poor. I had decided to go to university to become a psychologist, I transferred to nursing to become a psychiatric nurse practitioner. I gave it up because I could not stomach the concept of a life of wage slavery. Of condoning, even supporting, a system which I found immoral. I realized after some time I could no longer support our system, and so took steps to dislocated myself as much as possible from it. I am living on $60 a week in a rural area, just trying to empower myself as much as possible through providing my own necessities as much as possible and helping others in the local community. My goal is to eventually assist others in weaning themselves from their dependency on capital and state.

[labmath2]

In thus scenario, assuming the average and standard deviation is calculated before adding the bonus, there is an incentive to want the points. If you are sure you eill get an A, you dont care, so you select 6 pooints. If you think you are getting less, a 6 point increase almost gurantee you will move up one standard deviation, but there is yhe risk. 2 point might be sufficient to change your grade, but its not as sure,

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Market competition is a form of duress. If I decide to stop accumulating capital I will go out of business, I will be swallowed by the market. This is why it is called competition.

 

I have yet to see a market participant who does not external costs. Such externalities becomes a necessity of competitive advantage. Global warming due to carbon emissions is the largest example of the tragedy of the commons we have. It is directly facilitated by the necessity of externalizing costs. You will need to provide compelling evidence why private property would lead to complete internalization, a real world example would be good.

 

My relation to wealth and poverty is that of every working class person. I am poor. I had decided to go to university to become a psychologist, I transferred to nursing to become a psychiatric nurse practitioner. I gave it up because I could not stomach the concept of a life of wage slavery. Of condoning, even supporting, a system which I found immoral. I realized after some time I could no longer support our system, and so took steps to dislocated myself as much as possible from it. I am living on $60 a week in a rural area, just trying to empower myself as much as possible through providing my own necessities as much as possible and helping others in the local community. My goal is to eventually assist others in weaning themselves from their dependency on capital and state.

 

"Duress is - threats, violence, constraints, or other action used to coerce someone into doing something against their will or better judgement. IOW, coercion. Market competition by definition does not use coercion so it cannot be duress. 

​Externalties are often positive too and market participants have to suffer others externalties. So it tends to balance out. What screws things up is governments. For example, the owners of a rain forest are far more likely to protect that resource and see it thrive than the socailist south American governments who will strip-mine it in order to get revenue to pay for socialist programs as so as they can get votes. 

People like Bjorn Lomborg have put forward simple and cheap counter-measures to any global warming but socialist won't hear of it. Socailists need a pretext to justify the violence they wish to use to achieve their world so they love global warming.

As most people want a clean world and future for their children only anarcho-capitalism can deal with externalties because there are no rulers and no coercion in the economic realm ( a free market). That way resources can be allocated most efficiently and negative externalities will accrue to those who cause them. In socialism the opposite is true because everything is socialized and no one person is responsible. Because everyone owns everything NO ONE owns it and the one thing that tends to be true of humans is that we don't take good care of what we don't own.

[LibertarianSocialist]

"Duress is - threats, violence, constraints, or other action used to coerce someone into doing something against their will or better judgement. IOW, coercion. Market competition by definition does not use coercion so it cannot be duress. 

​Externalties are often positive too and market participants have to suffer others externalties. So it tends to balance out. What screws things up is governments. For example, the owners of a rain forest are far more likely to protect that resource and see it thrive than the socailist south American governments who will strip-mine it in order to get revenue to pay for socialist programs as so as they can get votes. 

People like Bjorn Lomborg have put forward simple and cheap counter-measures to any global warming but socialist won't hear of it. Socailists need a pretext to justify the violence they wish to use to achieve their world so they love global warming.

As most people want a clean world and future for their children only anarcho-capitalism can deal with externalties because there are no rulers and no coercion in the economic realm ( a free market). That way resources can be allocated most efficiently and negative externalities will accrue to those who cause them. In socialism the opposite is true because everything is socialized and no one person is responsible. Because everyone owns everything NO ONE owns it and the one thing that tends to be true of humans is that we don't take good care of what we don't own.

Even Bjorn Lamborgs solution has one major problem, it requires people to do it. Competition mandates you get others to pay while not doing so yourself, it results in forced collective shirking.

 

People do look after what they own, but they often don't give a damn about others. This is especially true when those others' interests conflicts with their own. A society which allows some to hold disproportionate power will allow them to walk all over the best interests of others, and will likely result in examples as given in my second last post.

[utopian]

Ya know I just so happen to be given the tragedy of the commons to read in my english class a couple semesters ago, and I remember thinking how much of a problem libertarians would have with this. The teacher just so happen to be very interested in talking about climate change and supporting the Masons. 

 

Still, I feel it had its valid points.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Even Bjorn Lamborgs solution has one major problem, it requires people to do it. Competition mandates you get others to pay while not doing so yourself, it results in forced collective shirking.

It doesn't mandate that. If you are offloading the cost of your clean-up onto others then your competition will see you doing it so they can off-load onto you. It makes no market sense to try to not pay for clean-up solutions. Competition actually mandates that YOU pay and the costs of your pollution accrue to you. What's even better about competition is that there will be a massive incentive to come up with new innovative, cheap ways to clean pollution. Capitalism = A clean Earth.

 

I wouldn't say people don't give a damn about others. Look at how sympathetically masses react when there's a world tragedy. Most people desire a clean lush environment. Bjorn Lomborg's solution is estimated at around 9 billion dollars. The amount Americans personally gave in charity in the year 2014 was 335.17 billion. Over 30 times the cost of Lomborg's solutions and that's just America voluntarily giving. These facts I think you'll agree destroy any case that solutions could not get paid for. 

[Thomasio]

An example is how privately owned timber forests are well maintained, whereas National Forests which are leased out temporarily to private loggers, get clear-cut.

 

What you see there doesn't have the slightest bit to do with proper maintenance, but is exclusively related to inequality.

Privately owned timber forest can be maintained, because the owner sets the price so high, that a large part of the population cannot afford it, while a small elite enjoys a comfort not available for others.

The owner sells only as much wood as can regrow and increases the price until demand matches the smaller supply.

 

National forests, attempting to spread out resources evenly throughout the population simply hits the wall, when they discover, there just aren't enough resources to allow all the people the best possible comfort.

This would require some kind of restriction, regulating the use of wood to a level where the forest could be maintained, but that just cannot work out.

There are always the super rich ones, taking advantages for themselves that they want to keep, no matter what regulation might be invented, where the wish for equal rights within the rest of the population makes everybody act in a kind of "if he can break the rules, I don't care for rules either".

Like Al Gore, travelling in a private jet while campaigning against climate change, or the (short term, former) greek financial minister Varoufakis, who closed the banks and set a limit of max 60 EUR people can withdraw from a bank per day, while he found it unacceptable for himself that he (after he quit his post) should have to cue up at the bank.

 

The question is, whether or not you find it right that some people shall have an extra comfort others can never hope to reach.

On the one hand its a good thing to have well maintained forest, on the other hand it might be fairer to maintain an environment where all people can thrive.

[Alan C.]

Private owners have a vested financial interest in the future value of their property. This is why privately-owned homes tend to be well maintained while public-housing and subsidized and rent-controlled ghettos tend to be filthy, dilapidated, and covered in graffiti. Public lands tend to be strip-mined, clear-cut, and polluted.

 

When a resource is owned in common, it removes the incentive to defer consumption and preserve because nobody as a vested financial interest in doing so.

[Thomasio]

When a resource is owned in common, it removes the incentive to defer consumption and preserve because nobody as a vested financial interest in doing so.

 

Private property protects itself by force against the public.

All you'd have to do is apply the same kind of force to public property, which would be called regulation then.

But then I guess from your point of view, what makes private property superior could never be allowed for public property, because as soon as it's public property, all rules have to be abolished.

[webdever]

Private property protects itself by force against the public.

All you'd have to do is apply the same kind of force to public property, which would be called regulation then.

But then I guess from your point of view, what makes private property superior could never be allowed for public property, because as soon as it's public property, all rules have to be abolished.

They have those kinds of regulations and force for public property. The issue isn't that it "could never be allowed", it's that force against destructive behaviors wont be enforced as hard because nobody has as much of a vested interest in doing so.

 

And force that supports destructive behaviors will be enforced more because a lot of people have a vested interest in usage of the property that benefits them short term, more so than their interest in preserving the property long-term.

[Slavik]

They have those kinds of regulations and force for public property. The issue isn't that it "could never be allowed", it's that force against destructive behaviors wont be enforced as hard because nobody has as much of a vested interest in doing so.

 

And force that supports destructive behaviors will be enforced more because a lot of people have a vested interest in usage of the property that benefits them short term, more so than their interest in preserving the property long-term.

Can you give me an example where private property was used short term in a destructive manner? 

[webdever]

Can you give me an example where private property was used short term in a destructive manner? 

My point was that public property tends to be used that way, not private property, not sure what you read or what you're asking. Maybe my post wasn't very clear.

 

All the examples I can think of where I've seen private property used short term in a destructive manner typically came from people who did not work to come into that property, people who get free money will buy things and trash them pretty quickly.

[Slavik]

My point was that public property tends to be used that way, not private property, not sure what you read or what you're asking. Maybe my post wasn't very clear.

 

All the examples I can think of where I've seen private property used short term in a destructive manner typically came from people who did not work to come into that property, people who get free money will buy things and trash them pretty quickly.

My apologies, I have misread it.

[LovePrevails]

it's funny how tragedy of the commons is always taught as an argument against free markets when in fact it is ultimately a proof of the impossibility of government. weird reversal of logic.

[Alan C.]

Private property protects itself by force against the public.

 

Why is that a problem?

 

All you'd have to do is apply the same kind of force to public property, which would be called regulation then.

 

Why bother?

 

But then I guess from your point of view, what makes private property superior could never be allowed for public property, because as soon as it's public property, all rules have to be abolished.

 

It's obvious what makes private property superior. Compare a privately-owned apartment complex to a public-housing project. Compare the AAA to the DMV. Compare private schools to public schools. Compare FedEx and UPS to the Post Office. Where do you get better service?

[Thomasio]

Compare FedEx and UPS to the Post Office. Where do you get better service?

 

Clearly at the post Office.

Sending a letter via postal mail from Germany to anywhere in the world costs 0.80 EUR, within Germany arrives in 24 hours, within Europe within 48 hours, worldwide usually in a week or so.

FedEx and UPS refuse to transport letters at all, unless you pack them in a bigger package and pay them like a package.

 

Sending a package up to 5kg via postal mail from Germany to anywhere in Europe costs 16 EUR, worldwide depends on destination, something between 29 and 43 EUR, within Europe usually arrives in 2-4 days, worldwide in about a week.

The same package sent via FedEx or UPS costs between 74 and 133 EUR and is usually 1-2 days slower.

 

I don't know about you, but I rather pay 80 Cents than 75 EUR, especially if it arrives faster.

I don't know how these things work in the US, but just in case you don't know, German postal mail was in 1989 converted from a plain state service to a state owned commercial service, which actually generates a profit every year.

Since this profit goes into the public household, all people in the country benefit from it, because whatever comes in from there doesn't have to be charged in taxes and since there is no private corporation behind it, serving the private profit of their owners, it can remain this much cheaper.

And yes, in Germany FedEx and UPS are tiny companies struggling for survival while paying minimum wage, while postal mail is thriving while paying higher wages.

[Mister Mister]

What you see there doesn't have the slightest bit to do with proper maintenance, but is exclusively related to inequality.

Privately owned timber forest can be maintained, because the owner sets the price so high, that a large part of the population cannot afford it, while a small elite enjoys a comfort not available for others.

The owner sells only as much wood as can regrow and increases the price until demand matches the smaller supply.

 

National forests, attempting to spread out resources evenly throughout the population simply hits the wall, when they discover, there just aren't enough resources to allow all the people the best possible comfort.

This would require some kind of restriction, regulating the use of wood to a level where the forest could be maintained, but that just cannot work out.

The question is, whether or not you find it right that some people shall have an extra comfort others can never hope to reach.

On the one hand its a good thing to have well maintained forest, on the other hand it might be fairer to maintain an environment where all people can thrive.

 

That's fascinating, so do you know how many trees should be cut down, by what method, how many should be left alone, how many should be planted, and what price is fair to charge for lumber, so as best to benefit all human beings in perpetuity?  Where did you come by such knowledge.  Surely you must be some kind of Forest-Philosopher-King.  Hail Thomasio, Philosopher King of the Forests of Earth!

[Thomasio]

That's fascinating, so do you know how many trees should be cut down, by what method, how many should be left alone, how many should be planted, and what price is fair to charge for lumber, so as best to benefit all human beings in perpetuity?  Where did you come by such knowledge.  Surely you must be some kind of Forest-Philosopher-King.  Hail Thomasio, Philosopher King of the Forests of Earth!

 

The ability to read is quite an advantage, but I guess one cannot expect high education from someone interested exclusively in bashing.

 

Take a course in reading, then scroll up and discover, I said: "... , but that just cannot work out."

[LibertarianSocialist]

it's funny how tragedy of the commons is always taught as an argument against free markets when in fact it is ultimately a proof of the impossibility of government. weird reversal of logic.

Who's defending the government?

 

Of course communal access to goods (common land) is going to abused by market players where possible, it is a classic externalization, the privation of gains and the socialization of costs. While the ability to externalize costs may be greater for common land, it is in no way absent from private holdings. This is because you can't privatize everything. How might one privatize the atmosphere, for instance. (a pressing concern too due to global warming).

 

Such a hybrid system of public/private ownership will of course promote externalization, the ability to own capital privately, and to use such capital to extract profits, incentivizes the conversion of common wealth to personal wealth. In such a system why would you not take what is others if you were able? Market competition actually dictates you must.

 

Under anarchist socialism, such partial common ownership would not exist to the same extent, and where the ability to convert public wealth to private wealth exists, such as left wing market anarchism, occupancy and use would be the limiting factor. Communism would remove the incentive to privatize gains while socializing costs entirely, by removing the major reason to externalize costs onto others, the maximization of private profit.

 

It should be stressed that the socialization of costs to maximize profit is not absent from the privately owned holding. Most here make the mistake of conflating personal property with private property, and of forgetting that capital is highly mobile.

 

Say a man called Leopold II of Belgium acquires the Congo Free State. His aims are to maximize profits. To do this he externalizes all those costs he can. He destroys villages, the environment and his available workforce. He essentially owns all these things (he doesn't own the people, but as residents they are considered worth tied to the area). As he owns these, he is destroying his own wealth, why? Because that wealth is useless to him. It is wealth that can only benefit the locals. He is happy to destroy this wealth so as to convert a fraction of it into wealth of a more useful nature to him.

Also, imagine that by owning the land he can generate 200 million a year in perpetuity or 4 billion for one year. If there exists other entrepreneurial avenues with greater than 5% return on investment, the latter is the logical choice. As interest is not derived from real wealth, the total sum of wealth has been reduced. It certainly has for all those people whose whole country has been destroyed, but they are of course externalities.

What you see there doesn't have the slightest bit to do with proper maintenance, but is exclusively related to inequality.

Privately owned timber forest can be maintained, because the owner sets the price so high, that a large part of the population cannot afford it, while a small elite enjoys a comfort not available for others.

The owner sells only as much wood as can regrow and increases the price until demand matches the smaller supply.

 

National forests, attempting to spread out resources evenly throughout the population simply hits the wall, when they discover, there just aren't enough resources to allow all the people the best possible comfort.

This would require some kind of restriction, regulating the use of wood to a level where the forest could be maintained, but that just cannot work out.

There are always the super rich ones, taking advantages for themselves that they want to keep, no matter what regulation might be invented, where the wish for equal rights within the rest of the population makes everybody act in a kind of "if he can break the rules, I don't care for rules either".

Like Al Gore, travelling in a private jet while campaigning against climate change, or the (short term, former) greek financial minister Varoufakis, who closed the banks and set a limit of max 60 EUR people can withdraw from a bank per day, while he found it unacceptable for himself that he (after he quit his post) should have to cue up at the bank.

 

The question is, whether or not you find it right that some people shall have an extra comfort others can never hope to reach.

On the one hand its a good thing to have well maintained forest, on the other hand it might be fairer to maintain an environment where all people can thrive.

In real life he cares little if he harvests all his wood so long as he has the ability to reinvest his capital elsewhere. If demand outstrips supply it actually encourages unsustainable harvests, the owner will only reduce supply if it is his best long term interest out of a myriad of other capital investments.

 

Also, don't fall down the well of thinking scarcity is as prevalent as people assume. Most scarcity nowadays is a result of private property ensured artificial scarcity so as to drive up relative profit. We have many ways in which we could reduce scarcity. For instance, the state restricts access to land on behalf of the Interests of capital (and itself) so as to force everyone to buy 1 million dollar homes in Sydney when land elsewhere is 1000 times cheaper. Likewise we feed fish to other fish because if we sold the former fish at true price it would not be worthwhile bringing to market. Thus we see sardines and tuna for near the same price at the store.

 

Not to say that your points were wrong, they weren't, but that they only apply in certain circumstances.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This is because you can't privatize everything. How might one privatize the atmosphere, for instance. (a pressing concern too due to global warming).

If you can't privatize it you can nationalize / communalize it. In other words, if an individual can't own it then a group of individuals can't own it. 

[LibertarianSocialist]

If you can't privatize it you can nationalize / communalize it. In other words, if an individual can't own it then a group of individuals can't own it.

 

Which naturally leads us to communism as the only means of wealth/property distribution.

 

I am arguing the futility of a system of personal renumeration by ANY people or group of people. Who says individual remuneration says externalization.

 

Now, I am not saying that individual remuneration ought to be forcefully abolished, such an act would set a precedent for the worst kinds of injustice, but we ought to acknowledge that externalization is inevitable, and ought to put in place a pressure release system for some of its worse consequences. In this regard the infrastructure of capitalism has proven unwilling and insufficient.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Which naturally leads us to communism as the only means of wealth/property distribution.

 

I am arguing the futility of a system of personal renumeration by ANY people or group of people. Who says individual remuneration says externalization.

 

Now, I am not saying that individual remuneration ought to be forcefully abolished, such an act would set a precedent for the worst kinds of injustice, but we ought to acknowledge that externalization is inevitable, and ought to put in place a pressure release system for some of its worse consequences. In this regard the infrastructure of capitalism has proven unwilling and insufficient.

Sorry I made a large mistake. I meant to say "If you can't privatize it then you CAN'T communalize it. That means if privatization is not possible then it logically follows that communalization is not possible because individuals need to be able to own things before a group of individuals can. 

I apologize for the mistake.