Slashdot Mirror
Reclaiming the Commons
NeuroManson writes "What do fresh air, medicine, culture, copyright, and government have in common? Perhaps not exactly what you think. Up until recently, I considered the term "commons" as an archaic term from Victorian or Elizabethan times. However, apparently it still exists both as a concept and a philosophy. Despite its almost ancient connotations, it's an eye opener regarding how concepts centuries old hold true even today, but much like freedom, require eternal vigilance to protect, and covers everything from the air you breath through the GNU, HDTV, and copyright issues. Read on." Bollier's article and the responses are superb intellectual reading. If you don't have time today, bookmark it, come back later.
"Perhaps not exactly what you think"?
What the hell does that mean?
Considered harmful.
In the paragraph right after discussing how the global gnu/linux community is part of the commons, there's this little gem:
What unites these highly disparate commons--from natural resources to public domain to gift economies--is their legal and moral ownership by the American people.
hrmmm.. the american people eh? because i thought that it really belonged "morally and legally" to the whole of the earths populace.
Us silly Americans.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
If anything, this article has brought out the depths of /. readers.
1.) "Read Tom G. Palmer's response" - I did, and his comments on the subject are as opinionated as Mr. Bollier's, just from a different point of view.
2.) "Who cares?" - When a corporation starts charging you for breathing air, you might pay more attention.
3.) "I got bored..." - Seeing as your founding fathers started from England and English law, I think you will find it applies. Besides, I live in Canada (an independent nation since 1867) and we still refer to English Common Law. BTW, we are a democracy. With elections that work... (Sorry, I had to...)
Just my 2c worth, or 1.2 US...
If Palmer really shared Bollier's concerns he wouldn't shoot the messenger, he would write a better message. But, Palmer's crocadile tears reveals his true position - corporate psychophant.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
It just seems to me that once the people no longer control what they own, they no longer have the power to use those resources for bringing about necessary changes.
My example, taken from an economics class, is that of the grass growing in the town square. (How much more common can that get?) If 1 shepherd lets the flock graze on the land, maybe there will be no problems (other than a herd of sheep invading the town square). If too many shepherds do this, or if it becomes a habit, there won't be much grass left, and the people and the sheep will both have to go without.
The end result of companies buying up that which belongs to us all is that they will exploit it to their maximum profit potential, and then discard it. What you end up with is vast resources that were squandered and used up to benefit a very few, after having been seized from the many. That which used to be free is now owned. That which used to belong to everyone is now fenced off, divided, broken down, distilled, and resold at a profit. The end result of this, however, is a death of sorts. The excesses that allowed other things to spring up and evolve have been destroyed, crushed under the optimizing economics of profit-uber-alles. And so, that which was supposed to enrich everyone (the public at large wouldn't extract minerals from the ground) ends up making everyone poorer (the public at large isn't going to chop down every tree and then let the wood rot).
Just my thoughts. The maintenance of the commons provides a very important balance to the individual / corporate urges to conquer and claim. Balance is good.
If you take nothing else from the essay, read over the poem:
They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose.
--English folk poem, circa 1764
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
Bollier leaves himself wide open to this sort of wimsical attack. Bollier is not in any way proposing communism or anything 'left wing'. He's talking about bringing things back into ballence.
Capitalism and Democracy are a symbiotic pair. You cannot have one without the other. Too much Capitalism (where money controls everything) and you loose your democracy, it becomes totalitarian. Too much Democracy and you loose innovation, and things become an Animal Farm.
Currently we are flirting with totalitarianism, under the disguise of capitalism.
In other words, because someone came up with a lousy name for a form of corporate insurance, all of the class warfare rhetoric is valid.
.... and landowners fighting environmental regulations insist that they "own" wildlife and that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional "taking" by government.
Nonsense. In America, we don't have classes... in the sense of hereditary social strata. Take a look at the backgrounds of most corporate higher-ups and you will not find people born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Social mobility, which is very strong in America especially, gives lie to the term "classes."
As far as the business of insuring employees - that is an aberration in the corporate system, not a condemnation of the whole system. And in any case, when you are dealing with masses of people and financial issues, you *do*, of necessity, end up using commodity terms to refer to the people (or at least the aspect of them that you are interested in). This doesn't mean that you think of them as cattle or peasants or anything else. It is just a matter of process.
As far as the environmental thing... go back and read it.
Well... never mind. Here is the quote:
This is a direct quote from the article. Note the term "land owners?" This is not about public land. Note also that this phrase gives another example of the fraudulent and polemical tone of the piece. Landowners fighting environmental takings do NOT claim they own the wildlife! What they do claim is that if they are to make large expenditures on behalf of the common good (for environmental reasons) that they should be reimbursed from the commons for their extraordinary contribution. If somebody suddenly can no longer build on his land, which he paid large amounts of money for, he is claiming that this constitutes a taking and that he should be reimbursed. And he is of course correct. The author, however, tries to brush aside this entire argument by mischaracterizing it (a favorite tactic of the left) so that it seems ridiculous. Environmentalists do their best to simply *take* that person's property rights for the common good.
This happens all the time here in Arizona. An example, where the expense is absorbed by a class of people, recently popped up: The Salt River Project reservoir - Roosevelt Lake - which is the major water supply for Phoenix, has been drawn down to very low levels due to a prolonged drought. A rare species of bird has taken up residence in the area normally covered by water. Now the project cannot fill up this area again without absorbing whatever expense is required to relocate the birds, or protect them or whatever... and this includes all the studies and lawsuits necessary to prove they have done the job. This is on land that was UNDERWATER until a couple of years ago. This is what is meant by a taking! The SRP is being forced to pay a cost, due to no fault of its own, to maintain mankind's interest in preserving this species of bird. I would argue that mankind, or at least the federal government, should provide recompense.
Of course SRP is big, so they are hard to feel sorry for. But exactly the same thing happens to the little guy around here. This is why the common way to deal with endangered species by some landowners (this poster not included) is "shoot, scoop and bury."
Note that this has nothing to do with the commons in any traditional legal sense. Private land never was part of the commons.
The only good weather is bad weather.
we do not have accurate ways of measuring the value of everything, but we could always guess. It's a safe bet that clean air is worth more than $0 more than unclean air, yet $0 is the current price of dirtying the air.
an "easy", incremental step would seem to be to charge for externalities, that is, guess a price for dirtying the air and charge companies that price when they dirty the air the guess will probably be slightly closer to the "true value" than $0.