Jack Murphy

Mr. Shirk

International Relations

11 November 2013

Blog #5: Tragedy of the Commons

            The tragedy of the commons is a theory created by Garret Hardin that essentially says that people will use common goods as much as they can to benefit themselves, not caring about depletion or ruining the common good. Common goods include oceans, the atmosphere, land, and other goods that are shared and free to anybody to use. Hardin also states this idea that the tragedy of the commons has been around for a long time now. Susan J. Buck however disagrees with Hardin for a few reasons. Buck believes Hardin’s definition of the commons is wrong, as well as his history of the commons, and how the commons were and should be run. While Buck does give some solid evidence though, I agree more with Hardin’s point of view on the commons.

            Firstly, Buck states that because of Hardin’s article most people today believe that “the tragedy was a regular occurrence on the common lands of the villages in medieval and post-medieval England” Buck continues to say that this “belief which, despite its wide acceptance as fact, is historically false” (Buck 47). Buck then goes on attempting to prove this by showing that the commons in medieval England were communally regulated. Buck wrote, “the English common was not available to the general public but was only available to certain individuals who owned or were granted the right to use it… and in some cases the number of animals each tenant could pasture were limited, based partly on the recognition of the limited carrying capacity of the land” (Buck 48). The implementation of these rules proves that they were aware and that there was a problem with the tragedy of commons, which goes against Buck’s view. Also, I find it hard to believe that everywhere in medieval England was regulated. For these reason’s I agree with Hardin.

            Buck also discusses the downfall of the commons system and how Hardin’s idea was wrong. Buck wrote that “often the regulations governing the commons were broken, as when greedy farmers took unauthorized animals, or when wealthy landowners or squatters took grazing to which they were not entitled because of lack of agreement among the tenants” (Buck 50). While Buck does not believe there was tragedy of the commons, these examples of what happened are clearly examples of tragedy of the commons. Buck then says that as technology, that only the rich could get, became better there were many people land-grabbing. These two events led to the downfall of the commons system. I though agree with Hardin that it was because of the tragedy of the commons that the common system went away, because of the overgrazing and abuse of the land people found it necessary to own the land. While Buck believes that, “the common in not free and never was free” and that communally regulated commons works, I agree with Hardin’s idea of the tragedy of commons that the commons are and were free and that the only way to fix that is by privatization of land.

Work Cited

Buck, Susan J. "No Tragedy on the Commons." Green Planet Blues: Four Decades of             Global Environmental Politics. By Ken Conca and Geoffrey D. Dabelko. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2010. N. pag. Print.

Hardin, Garrett James. The Tragedy of the Commons. [Washington, D.C.]: American             Association for the Advancement of Science, 1968. Print.

Blog Post #5

Artem Muchnik

Mr. Shirk

GVPT200

Dec 4, 2013

                                                Tragedy of the Commons

The tragedy of the commons is a theory that had been established by Garrett Hardin, this theory focused on the idea that humans will exhaust any means of common goods in order to profit themselves in current time without looking at the overall long term impacts of their actions, basically as Hardin says, “fouling our own nest”. When considering common goods, such things that qualify would be farming and herding land, bodies of water for fishing etc, basically any part of the earth that is open to exploitation. As any theory, there is always someone to contradict the claims of said theory and the person who believes differently about the Tragedy of the Commons is Susan Buck. Buck agrees with Hardin that “certainly we cannot deny that the phenomenon exists” and that “for hundreds of years-and perhaps thousands, although written records do not exist to prove the longer era-land was successfully managed by communities” but aside from agreeing on that she has some major views that differ exponentially to what Hardin believed. First of all Buck states that Hardin’s way of defining the Tragedy of the Commons is incorrect, that he has erroneous statements regarding some key points in history, and that his way of explaining how the system was run was incorrect too. Overall after reading both articles; The Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin, and No Tragedy on the Commons by Susan Buck, I agree more with what Hardin states in his theory compared to Buck because even though Buck contradicts a lot of the things Hardin says, it all comes back around to having resemblance to what Hardin originally had said.

When reading through Buck’s article in one part, Abuses of the Commons, she states that, “The commons were subject to several forms of abuse. Often the regulations governing the commons were broken, as when greedy farmers took in unauthorized animals, or when wealthy landowners or squatters took grazing to which they were not entitled”, this points directly back at Hardin’s definition of the Tragedy of the Commons which Buck claimed was incorrect. Overall I personally believe that Hardin had the right idea of the Tragedy of the Commons, and as much as Buck tries to prove some of his statements wrong, he actually has a logical point in everything.

When observing Buck’s article some things that she states tend to stand out, such as; “The right of common was a right granted to specific persons because these persons had some prior claim to the land or because the actual owner of the land granted them that right in return for their services” based off of this quote, one can assume that since land was more often then not granted to certain people and not everyone, then the people in charge of granting that land for use were more then aware of the problem that granting that use completely publicly would bring, also back in that time I don’t believe that there were such strong regulations on this and that all land was rationed as such; therefore there were probably areas of land that were granted to the public therefore supporting Hardin’s theory either way; since the people were aware that public land use would bring about the tragedy of the commons and most likely not all land was subject to such privatization some land did most likely suffer from the tragedy of the commons.

Personally after what I have read I think that the Tragedy of the Commons is existent and that Hardin has the right idea, even if a few of his facts are not precise, the theory cant be debunked as false or not as a real possible tragedy. Even to this day multiple people and companies abuse and exploit land, oceans and everything else possible no matter how regulated it is for their own gain; and that is the exact definition of the Tragedy of the Commons no matter at what time period you look at it at in my opinion.

Blog 5- Globalization

Dana Kravitz

GVPT200

Shirk

12/4/13

Globalization

            Though there are many positive aspects of globalization such as trade and an interconnected world, overall I think that globalization can be a very negative thing for the world. Globalization can sometimes be harmful because it takes away states individuality, the environment is being negatively effected, and it keeps the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor.

            Every country thinks that their way of doing things is the best. So when globalization occurs, powerful countries want people in weaker states to assimilate to their culture. By doing this, the world loses all of its diverse and interesting cultures. For example, when Columbus came to the Americas he wanted the Indians to be more like him. He pushed Christianity on them and wanted them to follow his customs. This continued as more countries colonized in places such as Africa and South America. Though the idea of the world living in unity is a positive theory, it is not beneficial if places lose their individualism. In class we talked about “the other” and whether globalization pushes them away or brings countries together. I think it creates a greater wedge between the countries because not all want to assimilate or do as we do and when they do not it creates tension.

            The environment also causes issues for globalization. The United States and China are responsible for the majority of Green House Gases emitted into the world. Since the environment is shared by everyone this does not seem to be fair. The behavior of one state effects what happens in another states and this can take place with no human interaction. The world’s states share natural resources so two major countries destroying the environment effects everyone. When going to third world or developing country and attempting to improve it by bringing in technology we are further destroying the environment because more resources are being used. Even when globalization is good in a humanitarian since it can still be negative when it comes to the environment.

Globalization does not necessary improve the world’s economy. For example, workers in higher wage countries are losing their jobs. Since poorer countries pay there workers less many American blue-collar jobs have been moved to countries like China and India. This has hurt the American economy and has helped America’s rich get richer and poor become poorer.  Along with this it makes the richer countries stay rich and the poorer countries stay poor. Though in theory one would think that trade among countries would benefit all, it is not necessarily a fair system. Wealthier nations can pay very little for a product and then sell it for much more in their county.

            Though globalization bring together countries and can positively effect the world we cannot ignore its negative aspects too, such as the individuality it takes from countries and peoples, the harmful effects it has on the environment, and the fact that it does not do that much good for the world’s economy.

Response Paper #5

Jessie Latter

GVPT200FC

4 December 2013

Response Paper #5: No Tragedy of the Commons

            After reading Garret Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons”, it is easy to become convinced of the failure of the commons system as a result of lack of restrictions. Although I agree with Hardin that freedom in a commons is a tragedy because it leads to overgrazing and population problems, in the “No Tragedy on the Commons”, Susan J. Buck points out a flaw in Hardin’s argument. The flaw in Hardin’s argument is that the tragedy of commons in early England was “not the result of unlimited access, but rather was the result of the historical forces of the industrial revolution, agrarian reform, and improved agricultural practices” (Buck 47). I agree with Bucks argument that there was no tragedy of the commons because Hardin misrepresented the state of the commons in England and technological advances in agriculture contributed to the decline of the commons system.

            In “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Hardin says there was freedom in the commons and anyone had the right to grow or graze on this public property. This freedom in a commons inevitably led to herdsmen and farmers to make a rational decision about how to maximize their owns gains, so “each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited” (Hardin 348). The commons were unregulated and this “freedom” inevitably led to overgrazing and population problems. Although I agree that if this were the true state of the commons then it would be a tragedy, but as Buck points out, “even from the beginning, the use of the common was not unrestricted…” (Buck 48). I agree with Buck that the commons as she describes it, was not a tragedy at all. Regulating common lands guarantees that individuals cannot freely abuse the land to maximize their own utility.

            Instead of contributing the decline of the commons system to its unrestricted access, which is historically inaccurate, Buck argues that it was the result of advancements in agricultural practices. I agree with this because advances in agricultural practices led to intensification in order to produce more food and bigger livestock, which did, and still has damaging affects on the land. It requires more resources and is less environmentally sustainable. This is what led to a decline in the traditional commons system in England and privatization of land.

Works Cited

Hardin, Garret, “Tragedy of the Commons”

Buck, Susan J. "No Tragedy of the Commons" 

Rory McClurg

GVPT200

The death of practicing just war theory

     As globalization is coming into fruition in the twenty-first century many things are changing and war is not exempt from this. The very nature of warfare is changing, since the beginning of time the general idea of war was that there were clear combatants, generally with uniforms signifying their role within the conflict, this is no longer the case, as states now almost exclusively fight guerilla fighters that represent no state. Because of this, it is impossible to abide by the just war theory in a modern world. This lack of state versus state fighting can be attributed to globalization, which has led to the death of just war theory in modern warfare.

     The global economy is so interconnected at this point; there is very little armed conflict between states due to all of the global trade. It would be foolish for one state to attack another, which is explained by the Golden Arches theory. To this point, the Golden Arches theory has held true. Since there is little state-to-state fighting, most modern war is established states fighting guerillas such as Al Qaeda and FARQ, which do not abide by the rules of conventional war and certainly don’t designate themselves with uniforms. This has led to much frustration among state military officials, and has led to the demise of the Jus in Bello in modern warfare, as states have employed generally non-discriminatory methods of killing such as drones or have loosened what it means to be a “non-combatant.” As a result of this, conventional rules such as not harming civilians, proportional force, and soldier designation have been thrown out the window.

     Considering these central aspects of the Just War theory have not been consistently abused over the last half-century or so, it is logical to conclude that the Just War theory has been destroyed by the evolution of warfare brought about by globalization.  

Whitney Lazo

December 2, 2013

            Terrorism is surprisingly difficult to define. It is a general word that covers a broad area. In Nate Silver’s The Signal and the Noise he offers different ways to describe terrorism. I believe that the most important aspect of terrorism and its definition is that the purpose is to instill fear and to alter a population’s behavior in some negative way in order to accomplish another goal or message (Silver, 428). Because this is ultimately done through violence and death, some are misguided and believe the destruction is part of the definition of terrorism. However, this is wrong. Most of the incidents from 1979 to 2000 against Western nations produced few fatalities. There were three attacks that accounted for more than 40 percent of the fatalities in this time span due to terrorism (429). This can be explained through power-law distribution.

            The power-law distribution implies that disasters that have occurred in the past can get worse, even if society does not expect it. Although it is plausible that disasters such as earthquakes and terrorist attacks can be more dangerous, it is also true that they will be infrequent (432). Just as this is true, it is also true that disasters can be common but not as dramatic. This is why the definition of terrorism does not only include extreme acts of aggression or mass killing. As long as a terrorist instills fear and sends a message to the victims or audience, it does not matter how big or small or how common. In addition, terrorists can be defined as many different types of groups or individuals. Al Qaeda and the Klu Klux Klan can both be considered terrorists. This is another reason why terrorism is so difficult to define.

            Regardless of who commits the act of terror or how it is done, terrorism is still a method of creating fear for the perpetrator’s gain. The power-law distribution helps prove that terrorism can be performed in all different ways. “Terrorists are not purely seeking to maximize their body count” (428). Silver describes that terrorist’s true motives are simply to maximize fear. This helps clear up a misunderstanding in today’s society.

Bibliography

            Silver, Nate The Signal and the Noise. New York, The Penguin Press 2012.