shag wrote: Hardin wrote:
>"Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."
to me, this is the more interesting part of his claim and gets at something that always bugs me about anarchist-type arguments.
the idea is that a community is self-regulating, to prevent itself from abusing its resources. but as i think Perelman says and this article points out, the commons-based community doesn't allow people complete freedom. it regulates itself via tacit rules -- norms -- about how people are to _use_ land.
^^^^^ CB: Other terms for these norms and rules are custom, tradition and law, law as state enforced custom. Law is perhaps at the explicit end of the "explicit - tacit" spectrum of norms. Although, I'd suspect the Commoners and Lords, Ladies and Bishops thoroughly talked about the customs . as much as the laws for land use.
The society before capitalism in which commons existed was a private property regime in terms of law. It was a different private property system than capitalism, but it was private property. Feudal private property/norm/rules.
Communism aims to abolish all forms of private property in the basic means of production, like land. It will be The Reality of the Comedy of the Commons.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com