• jacksilver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Looking at her work, the first stipulation on pooled resources is:

    Clearly defined boundaries: Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself.

    That seems like she is aware that commons can be misused and simply calling out that societies have found ways to manage them, which in turn kinda refutes the arguement being made in the post.

    • jackr@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      no it doesn’t? these are people working together in order to all use something, not someone who guards something with weapons and takes a cut of the value of your work

      • jacksilver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        You’re adding in additional concepts that change the arguement. The original post talks about fences and guarding resources, not about someone taking a cut of other people’s work.

        Additionally, even in the self-governance principles mentioned above there is a need for:

        1. Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or by both.

        You could argue that “sanctions” and “weapons/violence” are separate things, but ultimately even the economists mentioned above call out there is a need for enforcement on how “commons” are used.

        Edit: quotes are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom