|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 30 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators. Explain me what makes you say that. I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions.
Yea they operate in an inverse relationship, so I explain you that's what I meant.
As far as the solution-based argument goes, and I think it's compelling, you're basically channeling your inner Marx with a capitalism versus socialism/communism theory of history whereby the antecedent is a problem to which the successive stage is its solution.
#feelthebern
|
On July 30 2015 05:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:
No. Its a theory that the a person acting in self interest goes against the good of the group by depleting common resources. Its not specifically related to the market, since it can be something as simple as water. Collectivism is the opposite of that environment, where people do not act in self interest. And this happens why ? Because the goods are commons ? Omg... It create market failure and thus the good in question has to be managed through another way (taxation, law, but collectivisation is another solution). Show nested quote +Common goods are defined in economics as goods which are rivalrous and non-excludable. Thus, they constitute one of the four main types of the most common typology of goods based on the criteria:
whether the consumption of a good by one person precludes its consumption by another person (rivalrousness)
whether it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it (excludability) [...]
See also Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics)
Cool, glad you worked that out for yourself. Carry on.
|
|
|
On July 30 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators. Explain me what makes you say that. I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions.
Its not a meme, its a thought problem. Its really not the opposite of collectivism or really anything. The "solution" is basically to find a way to exclude (or invent a new kind of human, I suppose).
|
Although I hate the Koch brothers with the fire of a nova, this is what is best for the country. I love watching Trump make a fool of himself and the Republicans. But he needs to go if we want to have a real election about even mildly realistic issues.
|
On July 30 2015 05:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:10 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:
No. Its a theory that the a person acting in self interest goes against the good of the group by depleting common resources. Its not specifically related to the market, since it can be something as simple as water. Collectivism is the opposite of that environment, where people do not act in self interest. And this happens why ? Because the goods are commons ? Omg... It create market failure and thus the good in question has to be managed through another way (taxation, law, but collectivisation is another solution). Common goods are defined in economics as goods which are rivalrous and non-excludable. Thus, they constitute one of the four main types of the most common typology of goods based on the criteria:
whether the consumption of a good by one person precludes its consumption by another person (rivalrousness)
whether it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it (excludability) [...]
See also Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics) Cool, glad you worked that out for yourself. Carry on.
Do you understood how wrong you were or ?
On July 30 2015 05:15 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators. Explain me what makes you say that. I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions. Yea they operate in an inverse relationship, so I explain you that's what I meant. As far as the solution-based argument goes, and I think it's compelling, you're basically channeling your inner Marx with a capitalism versus socialism/communism theory of history whereby the antecedent is a problem to which the successive stage is its solution. #feelthebern
It's not Marx at all. Never heard about the enclosures ? There were commons way before Marx you know (and worked pretty well btw).
On July 30 2015 05:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators. Explain me what makes you say that. I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions. Its not a meme, its a thought problem. Its really not the opposite of collectivism or really anything. The "solution" is basically to find a way to exclude (or invent a new kind of human, I suppose).
As the post below me suggest (and the fact that there were commons collectively managed before) the solution is not necessarily to exclude, it can be to manage said good collectively.
|
On July 30 2015 05:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators. Explain me what makes you say that. I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions. Its not a meme, its a thought problem. Its really not the opposite of collectivism or really anything. The "solution" is basically to find a way to exclude (or invent a new kind of human, I suppose).
UNLESS GUIZ human nature is, in fact, predisposed toward a collective attitude and abiding by moral law, a natural law, and extrinsic forces compelled us to act otherwise.
#teamLocke
|
On July 30 2015 05:21 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:15 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2015 05:10 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:
No. Its a theory that the a person acting in self interest goes against the good of the group by depleting common resources. Its not specifically related to the market, since it can be something as simple as water. Collectivism is the opposite of that environment, where people do not act in self interest. And this happens why ? Because the goods are commons ? Omg... It create market failure and thus the good in question has to be managed through another way (taxation, law, but collectivisation is another solution). Common goods are defined in economics as goods which are rivalrous and non-excludable. Thus, they constitute one of the four main types of the most common typology of goods based on the criteria:
whether the consumption of a good by one person precludes its consumption by another person (rivalrousness)
whether it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it (excludability) [...]
See also Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics) Cool, glad you worked that out for yourself. Carry on. Do you understood how wrong you were or ?
I don't really like talking with you, so I stopped. Your sole purpose in these threads seems to be talking down to people and being an all around jerk. It was my mistake for engaging you and I apologize.
|
On July 30 2015 05:21 Plansix wrote:Although I hate the Koch brothers with the fire of a nova, this is what is best for the country. I love watching Trump make a fool of himself and the Republicans. But he needs to go if we want to have a real election about even mildly realistic issues.
Eh, but we're so far ahead of the elections that we could have waited a couple months for Trump to self-implode.
|
United States42016 Posts
On July 30 2015 05:21 Plansix wrote:Although I hate the Koch brothers with the fire of a nova, this is what is best for the country. I love watching Trump make a fool of himself and the Republicans. But he needs to go if we want to have a real election about even mildly realistic issues.
Still it's hilarious that the hugely rich influential people at the top get to decide who gets to speak at the grassroots campaign events and who doesn't.
|
On July 30 2015 05:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:21 Plansix wrote:Although I hate the Koch brothers with the fire of a nova, this is what is best for the country. I love watching Trump make a fool of himself and the Republicans. But he needs to go if we want to have a real election about even mildly realistic issues. Still it's hilarious that the hugely rich influential people at the top get to decide who gets to speak at the grassroots campaign events and who doesn't.
"Grassroots" events. Events funded by the rich where the show off their cherry picked candidates to the masses. All over the country. There is something amazingly wrong with this country that the Koch brothers are not house hold names.
|
On July 30 2015 05:21 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:15 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2015 05:10 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:
No. Its a theory that the a person acting in self interest goes against the good of the group by depleting common resources. Its not specifically related to the market, since it can be something as simple as water. Collectivism is the opposite of that environment, where people do not act in self interest. And this happens why ? Because the goods are commons ? Omg... It create market failure and thus the good in question has to be managed through another way (taxation, law, but collectivisation is another solution). Common goods are defined in economics as goods which are rivalrous and non-excludable. Thus, they constitute one of the four main types of the most common typology of goods based on the criteria:
whether the consumption of a good by one person precludes its consumption by another person (rivalrousness)
whether it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it (excludability) [...]
See also Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics) Cool, glad you worked that out for yourself. Carry on. Do you understood how wrong you were or ? Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:15 always_winter wrote:On July 30 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators. Explain me what makes you say that. I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions. Yea they operate in an inverse relationship, so I explain you that's what I meant. As far as the solution-based argument goes, and I think it's compelling, you're basically channeling your inner Marx with a capitalism versus socialism/communism theory of history whereby the antecedent is a problem to which the successive stage is its solution. #feelthebern It's not Marx at all. Never heard about the enclosures ? There were commons way before Marx you know (and worked pretty well btw). Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:18 cLutZ wrote:On July 30 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators. Explain me what makes you say that. I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions. Its not a meme, its a thought problem. Its really not the opposite of collectivism or really anything. The "solution" is basically to find a way to exclude (or invent a new kind of human, I suppose). As the post below me suggest (and the fact that there were commons collectively managed before) the solution is not necessarily to exclude, it can be to manage said good collectively.
Collective management, whatever that is, would still require excluding people from using as much of the good as they want, unless you have magic people that want exactly is best for the group. And it needs a mechanism to prevent cheating. Unless, again, magic people.
|
United States42016 Posts
|
As long as they were not charged, I don't mind. But my god, that man is an idiot if he really fired three shots at unarmed teens fleeing.
|
On July 30 2015 05:46 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 05:21 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 05:15 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2015 05:10 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:
No. Its a theory that the a person acting in self interest goes against the good of the group by depleting common resources. Its not specifically related to the market, since it can be something as simple as water. Collectivism is the opposite of that environment, where people do not act in self interest. And this happens why ? Because the goods are commons ? Omg... It create market failure and thus the good in question has to be managed through another way (taxation, law, but collectivisation is another solution). Common goods are defined in economics as goods which are rivalrous and non-excludable. Thus, they constitute one of the four main types of the most common typology of goods based on the criteria:
whether the consumption of a good by one person precludes its consumption by another person (rivalrousness)
whether it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it (excludability) [...]
See also Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics) Cool, glad you worked that out for yourself. Carry on. Do you understood how wrong you were or ? On July 30 2015 05:15 always_winter wrote:On July 30 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators. Explain me what makes you say that. I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions. Yea they operate in an inverse relationship, so I explain you that's what I meant. As far as the solution-based argument goes, and I think it's compelling, you're basically channeling your inner Marx with a capitalism versus socialism/communism theory of history whereby the antecedent is a problem to which the successive stage is its solution. #feelthebern It's not Marx at all. Never heard about the enclosures ? There were commons way before Marx you know (and worked pretty well btw). On July 30 2015 05:18 cLutZ wrote:On July 30 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators. Explain me what makes you say that. I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions. Its not a meme, its a thought problem. Its really not the opposite of collectivism or really anything. The "solution" is basically to find a way to exclude (or invent a new kind of human, I suppose). As the post below me suggest (and the fact that there were commons collectively managed before) the solution is not necessarily to exclude, it can be to manage said good collectively. Collective management, whatever that is, would still require excluding people from using as much of the good as they want, unless you have magic people that want exactly is best for the group. And it needs a mechanism to prevent cheating. Unless, again, magic people.
There were (and are) plenty of land and goods that were managed through local associations. Kibboutz, Kholkoze, or common pasture in the UK, "jardin ouvriers" in France. You prevent cheating like any other kind of goods - with local management and eventually the police. But often time it was not needed : the people that used the common land usually feel like taking part in the production. What's the point in stealing yourself ?
The problem with collective use of land or goods is (oftentime) productivity, not the destruction of said good. It's mainly because the farmer has interest in using a good without paying its use - through the mecanism of the market (in the tragedy of commons) - that the farmer overuse said good.
|
Yes, the problem of under-productive land is also common in communes (many early American settlers died as a result of this), which have nothing to do with the tragedy of the commons. That is just a crappy economic system failing because of the lack of magic people.
|
Announcing the indictment of a white University of Cincinnati police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black man during a traffic stop, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters called the officer's actions "asinine" and "totally unwarranted."
"This doesn't happen in the United States," he said. "It might happen in Afghanistan or somewhere else, but people here don't get shot during a traffic stop."
A grand jury handed down an indictment on murder charges against Officer Ray Tensing, who, as NPR member station WVXU reports, had previously said he shot Sam DuBose because he was being dragged by his car and he had no other choice but to shoot. Tensing had stopped DuBose because he was missing a front license plate.
Deters said the body cam video completely contradicts that version of events.
"It was so unnecessary for this to have occurred," Deters said. "This situation should never have escalated like this."
DuBose's killing has sparked protests in Cincinnati and garnered national attention because it's yet another incident of perceived police brutality over what should have been an unremarkable civil violation.
Before the video was released, the University of Cincinnati closed its campus and asked students to leave as they prepared for potentially violent protests.
Source
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks "privatization" is the best way to conserve the planet and its wildlife is fucking nuts.
|
The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to ban the possession of large-capacity gun magazines, following San Francisco to become the second major city in California to take that step.
The ordinance passed on Tuesday prohibits Los Angeles residents from possessing a handgun or rifle magazine that fits more than 10 rounds.
Residents would have 60 days after the law takes effect to remove, sell or transfer such magazines from city limits in compliance with state law, or to surrender them to the Los Angeles Police Department.
The law would take effect 30 days after Mayor Eric Garcetti signs it, a move that he was "eager" to make, he said in a statement.
The legislation comes amid increasingly urgent debate following recent mass shootings in the United States, including last week’s movie theater shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, and an attack on a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, last month.
The Los Angeles Times reported that the ban would not include police and military gun owners, licensed firearm dealers or people who obtained guns before 2000 that can only be used with large-capacity magazines.
Similar ordinances in San Francisco and Sunnyvale, California, have so far withstood legal challenges. Last year, a federal judge upheld a Colorado law banning magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
