My Photo

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


« Sandbox - 11jul17 | Main | Roll on A21 - rollin’, rollin’, rollin’! »

12 July 2017



Just got back from an afternoon of shooting with one my pals in 92F weather, slaving over a hot scope on my new 30-06 (we both have identical rifles and scopes), and now we’re ready for some prime sour mash squeezins on the rocks sitting on the porch with our feet up. Life is good.]

Yes! Life is good!

Although I'm quite sure that a fair number of your neighbors (and a couple non-neighbors) are suffering from a serious case of the vapors due to this addendum.


So I don't have to hear so much hand waving about healthcare in the rest of the world.

George Rebane

Scenes 648am - Great find Mr Scenes, thank you.

Bill Tozer

Perhaps this is on topic for the Social Commons. Although I do not like the writer's style or opinions he injects into this news, the jest of it I agree with.

Feeling aggrieved? Take it to the United Nations.


"the jest of it"

That's a *great* turn of phrase. I'm going to steal it.

It appears that the commons (including the commons of ideas) only includes things possessed by people you don't like. People you like? Well, they get permanent ownership.

Bill Tozer

The Commons:



I was just musing about village commons. It's funny how, in the modern world, you can almost guarantee that those most interested in expanding the domain of the commons (healthcare, safety regulations, greenhouse gas control, etc.) are also those most interested in expanding the reach of diversity. It seems to me that the only method that works for maintaining a commons is social pressure unless you put a police state into force.

Bill Tozer

Scenes, I can't get your wonderful link to continentalism out of my mind for two straight days now.
Sorry Doc, back to the topic at hand.....The Antisocial Social Commons:

"The inevitable problem comes when funds to support a common resource become scarce, then the prudent manager will demand further concessions by raising taxes and reducing services to consumers.
The promoters of social commons argue that these problems arise because we have not yet completely purged capitalism, markets, greed, and inequality from society."-- Dr. Rebane.

Scott Obermuller

The main hallmark of our system of fed governance (a republic) is that the founders understood human proclivities, frailties and general nature. A thorough read through recorded human history shows these not to change one whit in several millennia.
Yet the 'progressives' (liberals, the left, socialists, etal) claim our Constitution is outdated due to the advance of society and technology.
Whereas the original idea was to provide the citizens with a govt that would protect them from foreign enemies abroad and provide them protection from the govt itself, it has devolved into the exact mess we were warned about. The fed govt was never intended to hand out goods to anyone (save immediate disasters). The states are free to hand out what ever they like. Witness California's bold talk about free health care for everyone in the world. As predicted, it came to a quick end due to California not having the ability to print money. It was virtue signaling pure and simple. Pure democracy will always fail because the majority is quite sure they need the minorities' money. The minority at some point will object and either relocate or fight back. Hilarity ensues.
Much is said on the left about the 'social contract' and our responsibility to the poor, but I find it curious that the poor seem to have no responsibilities at all.
Normally we find that children and animals are placed in that domain. It speaks volumes that the left would also add certain humans to that realm. Curious.

Bill Tozer

Varney: 7/10/2016

Steve Frisch

Its amazing to me how twisted Hardin's lesson is presented here.

The commons is characterized by one of two traits, it is either owned by no one or it is owned by everyone.

Hardin's interpretation of Lloyd's idea is that it must be owned by everyone and managed for the benefit of everyone or it is destroyed for everyone.

If George's position is that the "Commons" should be managed privately it is antithetical to Hardin and Lloyds meaning....because their point was that there must be regulation....and the only entity with the power, collective authority and the rule of law to check it, thus appropriate to regulate it is 'government' or collective in some way.

Hardin himself said in later years that he should have named his essay, "The Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons."

George Rebane

SteveF 820am - I believe you misunderstand both Hardin and me. Hardin's main discovery and revelation was that ownership by "everyone" is the operational equivalent of ownership by no one. You also don't seem to understand the definition of a common. As I mentioned in my commentary (and many times in these pages), to the extent a common resource is subsumed (regulated, managed, ...) by an agent, it ceases to be a common, no matter what the de jure ownership papers say. And I made no claim that private ownership of a common resource is the only way to save that resource; collective ownership in its various feedback-responsive (as local as possible) forms have a laudable history of preserving resources and/or extending their useful lives.

However, to the extent that the controlling agent is distant, ignorant, incompetent, and/or feedback-resistant/immune, then history again shows that the resource either 1) reverts back to a de facto common, or 2) its attempted preservation is imposed by the heavy hand of overwhelming force employed by the agent to simply deny or greatly limit (i.e. constructively deny) that resource.


In case the peanut gallery is interested.

The modern tendency is to lazily look at wikipedia (or Daily Kos/Stormer) for the Powerpoint version, which is a habit it's best to avoid.


TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS: Self-driving Taxis Will Become the Most Disgusting Spaces on Earth.

Humans are more animal like when they think no one is watching.


"..and the only entity with the power, collective authority and the rule of law to check it, thus appropriate to regulate it is 'government' or collective in some way"
-Frisch 820am

Or signed contracts, agreements, by the users of that commons. Maybe an elected board where all stakeholders have a vote.

An 'appropriate' central government regulating a commons they don't actually use is how southern Nevada (to illustrate one of the heavy handed situations George may have been thinking of) got its rangeland managed by professional managers playing God... OK... there's tortoise habitat being taken (destroyed) by a big solar installation that has some heavy hitters (a Reid or two?) involved, so we'll squeeze out the cattle over there so we can relocate the tortoises once the cattlemen are driven out. Oh, and there will be more tortoises to be moved than there is room so some of those will need to be killed with kindness but killed nonetheless. The solar installation is smack dab in the middle of the most important tortoise habitat in Nevada but since the tortoises don't vote, they don't get a say about the eviction.

That's what happens when a state is formed but the feds don't allow the folks living there to own it. They hire professionals to manage it, Federal civil servants, that cost millions nowadays, by the time they're dirt napping after retirement. And they aren't under the political control of the locals, subject to vote. A permanent overseer from the Great White or Black or Orange Father in Washington who doesn't give a damn unless it erupts into the news.

Now Steve, I can hear you sputtering about Bundy already. This isn't in support of him or the folks who rallied around him... it's pointing out what a mess of things that regulation you think "appropriate" can be made by federal control.


Not solar... Searchlight (home town of Harry Reid) was to be a large scale wind farm. It got killed off this past April.


re: Russ@2:49PM

I have to admit that it's one of the most short-sighted ideas that I have ever run into.

In an era of $20k-$30k new cars, why on earth would most people wander into the concept of shared transportation? Simply spend a bit of money, and you get something that is there immediately, is clean, and is the color that you like.

The notion of robot cars doesn't imply shared robot cars.


Scenes@07:07 PM

True the notion of robot cars does not imply shared cars, however, it is the ride sharing companies that are driving the technology and testing. In addition, the climate change warriors as a prime method for reducing vehicle miles traveled thus reducing CO2 emissions. We may not have a choice in California. According to Gov. Brown, we will soon all be moving about in electric powered robot driven shared vehicles. Perhaps not while I am alive, but my grandchildren's children will be chauffeured about in electric driven robotic cars. That is if they remain in CA and progressive Democrats are not driven from office anytime soon.


re: Russ@10:16PM

I can see California pulling a France and requiring a complete electrification of the auto fleet by some year (which includes a 100% 'retirement' of liquid fuel vehicles). The degree that CARB was willing to make the smog check system onerous is proof of the political will to do that.

OTOH, unless the car manufacturers want to die, I expect them to jump with both feet into autonomous vehicles if it seems like a reasonable future of the technology. Shared cars implies far fewer units sold and a big drop-off in the sales push via styling, generations of model, technology, etc. I would think that Toyota would do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing in.

For those who are big believers in shared cars (called 'taxis' currently, which are probably cheaper than actually owning a car for some subset of owners and whose use could easily be expanded), it might make sense to enlarge the idea. Perhaps a shared library of power tools, musical instruments, and the like with an enforced turn-in of the privately owned variety.

As I think of it, there might be a new social movement in the offing. If you can restrict people from private ownership of goods, it makes us more the same. There's probably money in the concept, I'll get cracking on writing a grant proposal.

George Rebane

Re Scenes 610am - as described here for some years, it's called Agenda 21.


re: GeorgeR@6:18AM

On your prodding, I'm having an enjoyable time drinking coffee and reading the Agenda 21 for Culture documents. lol. What a load of jibber jabber, nice work if you can get it.

In the truly big picture, cultural evolution will put paid to wastes of time like this. It isn't like a strong AI or a more successful community (ie. The Chinese) will care about all this hard work by well meaning bureaucrats. Whether the West survives it is another matter. Hope spring eternal, though. I view Trump as an imperfect agent of the immune system of Western Civilization stirring itself and have more optimism than before.

It sure would be simpler for people to produce fewer progeny. ZPG would have been hit some decades ago in the US except for the gift of diversity from abroad. Oddly enough, population replacement appears to be more important to the Left than the environmental effect of more people in a region.


Oddly enough, population replacement appears to be more important to the Left than the environmental effect of more people in a region.

Every group in power wants an army!

Bill Tozer

Scenes @ 7:03 am.
Good insight, sir. Short and sweet.
"Oddly enough, population replacement appears to be more important to the Left than the environmental effect of more people in a region."

Another quote:

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress.” —Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

Conversely, a quote from The Big Lie:

“The climate movement, not least in cities, is right now in the tradition of all the great moral causes that have improved the circumstances of humanity throughout our history. The abolition of slavery. Women’s suffrage and women’s rights. The civil rights movement and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. … All of these movements have one thing in common. They all have met with ferocious resistance and have generated occasional feelings of despair from those who knew the right direction and wondered whether we could ever get there.” —Al Gore

Bill Tozer

Bill Tozer

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad