Posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 1:32:18
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 6:48:44
> > Incentive was the key?
>
> I guess that is the way they tell the story. Being granted / Taking ownership.I wonder what ownership here might look like.
--
> I feel that some people DO suffer in current commons-type situations because they have MORE of a social conscience. These might be situations that are objectively seen to be 'working'. Perhaps they might even be cases that Ostrom would consider 'successfully managed'. But they might be managed such that the sensitive individuals with social conscience are in fact carrying more of the load. Is such a situation sustainable? People have managed to successfully exploit others over considerable periods of time...
Sustainable is different than just:
> > An alternative to the commons need not be perfectly just to be preferable. With real estate and other material goods, the alternative we have chosen is the institution of private property coupled with legal inheritance. Is this system perfectly just? ... We must admit that our legal system of private property plus inheritance is unjust--but we put up with it because we are not convinced, at the moment, that anyone has invented a better system. The alternative of the commons is too horrifying to contemplate. Injustice is preferable to total ruin.
Bob
a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:1047868
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20130914/msgs/1051319.html