The Seasteading Institute

i_is_j_smith said

‘The kinds of sustainable, environmentally-friendly policies that would never get enacted on land in existing societies can be implemented when building a new society. We can lead the way…’

But you’re ignoring the issue of *why* these wise policies don’t get enacted.

Unlike libertarindoc’s spacesteads, seasteads are going to have to play by terrestrial rules in a terrestrial economy.

Seasteads can be a good model for alternative development, just because they are going to be spacially efficient by necessity. There won’t be any issue of commuting because you’ll be able to walk across your entire habitat in an hour or less, for example.

Wise policies get butchered for short term gain, often by a tiny minority. Observe government approval for mining of conservation reserves in New Zealand.

How are seasteads going to be any different, especially when the technology is mature enough for anyone to play?

And I believe more market-based solutions (ie more free) will pollute far less than nation-states (ie coercive) have.

Do you have the data to confirm this? My knowledge of history seems to indicate the opposite…

And I believe more market-based solutions (ie more free) will pollute far less than nation-states (ie coercive) have.

Do you have the data to confirm this? My knowledge of history seems to indicate the opposite…

[/quote]

Well, how abou the state of the worlds fisheries? In terrible shape, despite coercive international treaties that attempt to ‘manage’ the catch. Or, go look at the forests in the Pacific Northwest, where alternating sections (square miles) are private and federal….and tell me which is in better shape (the private land: The owners have motivation to keep them that way).

The government solution to any rationing of anything leads to the tragedy of the commons: Special interests decide that they need to use just a bit more and since it doesn’t belong to them, it’s not a hardship (short term) if they damage or destroy it. Plus, they have economic incentives to make certain that others don’t have a market advantage by using more of it themselves.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

The government solution to any rationing of anything leads to the tragedy of the commons: Special interests decide that they need to use just a bit more and since it doesn’t belong to them, it’s not a hardship (short term) if they damage or destroy it. Plus, they have economic incentives to make certain that others don’t have a market advantage by using more of it themselves.

Yep, exactly. It’s all about incentives. How many people destroy their own property? Not many.

Regarding care of forests, take a look at a satellite map of the island of Hispanola. Dominican Republic, a comparitively prosperous, healthy capitalist economy is on the East end of it. Haiti, a socialist economy and one of the poorest in the world is on the West end of it. Forests on the Dominican Republic side of the border are in great shape, with lots of trees well preserved. On the Haiti side, individual people have clear cut many of the forests for firewood since they are desperate for a source of heat. (This was before the earthquake.) There are big patches of brown earth visible where the forests used to be on the Western side of the border. I’m not sure how much clearer of a split-study experiment one could do to see the effects of the two different economic systems.

People do not protect the resources that are common inherently

I disagree. If they can afford to do so, most people will spend extra to protect commons.

I agree there are some who do not, but this is a minority and not a huge problem.

Poverty is the biggest polluter. Rich people have options. Poor people do not.

Common ownership (effectively un-owned resources) is far from an ideal situation though. Private ownership is better, because people generally take excellent care of their own property, like Jeff suggests.

So we should let people homestead as much resources as possible, and let consumer choice and competing non-profits protect the resources that cannot be privately owned.

I do not believe we should entrust national governments or UN bureaucrats with such an important task, because they usually screw things up.

People do not protect the resources that are common inherently

I disagree. If they can afford to do so, most people will spend extra to protect commons.

I agree there are some who do not, but this is a minority and not a huge problem.

Poverty is the biggest polluter. Rich people have options. Poor people do not.

Common ownership (effectively un-owned resources) is far from an ideal situation though. Private ownership is better, because people generally take excellent care of their own property, like Jeff suggests.

So we should let people homestead as much resources as possible, and let consumer choice and competing non-profits protect the resources that cannot be privately owned.

I do not believe we should entrust national governments or UN bureaucrats with such an important task, because they usually screw things up.

Sorry to be blunt, but this isn’t a subjective discussion. Elinor Ostrom has documented literally thousands of cases in which common resources have been devastated simply because they are common. However, she has also documented (vast minority) cases that show how these resources have been kept intact due to very specific measures being taken by the community to keep them that way. The objective evidence is there. My hope for this thread is that we can start to discuss how to implement her methods in order to ensure that we are part of the minority that protects their common areas, not the majority who devastate them.

from wikipedia:

Central to Hardin’s article is an example (first sketched in an 1833 pamphlet by William Forster Lloyd), of a hypothetical and simplified situation based on medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin’s example, it is in each herder’s interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the carrying capacity of the common is exceeded and it is temporarily or permanently damaged for all as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed to the detriment of all.

A similar dilemma of the commons had previously been discussed by agrarian reformers since the 18th century.^[2] Hardin’s predecessors used the alleged tragedy, as well as a variety of examples from the Greek Classics, to justify the enclosuremovement. German historian Joachim Radkau sees Garrett Hardin’s writings as having a different aim in that Hardin asks for a strict management of common goods via increased government involvement or/and international regulation bodies.^[2]

A few things:

Carl, Elinor aims to use community communication and structure to manage commons. If they are not setup using her method, then inevitably, they will be destroyed. Therefore it’s important to set these up before, not after the resources are managed. The community could be many things. In the baltic, the community is the countries (both EU and non EU) that share that resource (the sea). It could also be the traditional example from wikipedia above.

libertariandoc: That’s actually not commons. It’s private land and national park land. Both are managed, just in different ways as you can see. It’s the tragedy of the commons that pushed europe and america into the enclosure movement (see above)

Letting your cows graze the hell out of the pasture and destroy it is not an individual rational economic decision. Presumably the herder (being a herder) wants to keep raising cattle in the long term.

So Ostrom advocates the users of a resource form some sort of governing body to enforce the level of usage? I don’t think I have a problem with that, provided that the governing body is exposed to competition. Meaning that if some users find that governing body X isn’t doing it’s job properly they should be able to form a competing organization.

The standards of these organizations might then be scrutinized by consumers and media as well as their members, to hold them to account. Bad organizations will lose support and die.

If a cowherd has his own pasture, he will be a wise steward of the land because it is economically rational for him to be. If the pature is a commons, then the economically rational thing for him (and every other cowherd) is to graze the hell out of the pasture so their cows get as much of the limited resource as possible: This maximizes their economic success both first order (his cows are fatter) and second order (his competitors cows will be less well nourished).

That is the tragedy of the commons. It’s a zero-sum game, there is only so much grazing land.

A fair government intervening means that all the cows are resource limited, or that there are artificial barriers to entry into raising cattle. Strong property rights means that the market, which is able to respond far faster to economic forces will balance the need for grazing land with demand on it, because the cowherd will maximize his resources and demands.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.