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.
Even if the commons being unrestricted is historically inaccurate, do you think that if this were to be true, there would have been a tragedy? If everyone of medieval England shared the land and the air and the oceans, any person could allow greed to overcome them and take advantage as much as possible of the land. There may be that one person who does not care about sharing the land and does not care about the good of others, who would begin this tragedy by overgrazing.
ReplyDeleteI concede that if Hardin's account was historically accurate then it would be a tragedy. But it's hard to imagine in modern day with the privatization of nearly all land and the scarcity of public 'commons' that the tragedy of the commons system would be the result from no regulation.
DeleteI thought you made good points that there was no tragedy of commons in medieval England as Hardin argued. I though agree more with Hardin. Buck discusses how land was self regulated by the people, not by the government. People will always act in there best interest so if the land is self regulated then there was a tragedy of commons. I do agree with Buck and you though that advancements in agriculture had a part in the decline of the commons system, but I also believe the tragedy of the commons had a part as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the points you took from the texts were good and well organized. You said why you disagree but you use the authors beliefs to do so, if I feel if you put in your own beliefs the paper would have been better. Also, I feel that your paper makes it easy to see that Buck might be right abut the technological however, I believe that that over-grazing could have lead to the problem too because if something is self regulated than that is bound to happen.
ReplyDelete