Every Commons ends in Tragedy

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  Winston Churchill

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular bi-weekly KVMR radio commentary broadcast on 13 April 2012.]

Years ago when our kids were in early grade school, mom would bake a big batch of delicious chocolate chip cookies every Sunday evening for the kids’ lunches in the coming week.  The cookies went into a big cookie jar that lived on the white-tiled kitchen counter.  The Monday lunches always got their full complement of cookies and so did the Tuesday lunches.  But mysteriously by Tuesday evening the cookie jar was empty.  Well, it wasn’t a mystery at all, each kid took every opportunity to reach in the jar and grab a few when going through the kitchen.

What to do to make the cookies last the whole week?  I had just finished reading an essay by a college professor named Garrett Hardin titled ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, and the solution came like a flash.  It turns out that we had made the cookie jar into a commons, and as the good professor made clear, all commons are destroyed by their consumers.  All we had to do was to divide up the cookies into bags with each kid’s name on it, and each could do what they wanted with their own stash.  Miraculously the cookies lasted the whole week as each managed their own supply – they even used the cookies to barter for things like trading chores.  The main thing was that on Sunday nights the cookies immediately had owners who managed them through the week to their own benefit.

Dr Hardin was a renowned social scientist whose ideas were variously embraced and vilified by both the right and the left.  He formalized the idea of a commons as a commonly held and consumed resource like the pasture land of a village in which the local inhabitants would let their milk cows graze (think of the Boston commons).  The bad part of a commons is that the incremental cost of consuming an increased share of the commons is not paid by that consumer.

Hardin told the story of a commons that had a carrying capacity of ten cows, each one belonging to a different family.  Soon one of them decided to get a little extra income by introducing another cow.  So now eleven cows ate the grass and each one got a little less but that didn’t matter in the scheme of things – yet.  Soon another family saw the benefit of an extra cow and added theirs.  This was rapidly picked up by the other families, and twenty skinnier cows were eating less grass and giving less milk.  It didn’t take long for the third cows to be added in the attempt to make up for the poor milk production.  And you can see, that before long, the commons was bare of grass, the cows didn’t give milk and had to be sold or slaughtered, and everyone lost.

But while the game went on, if you decided to be a good citizen and not add another cow, you immediately got penalized.  That is what Hardin was trying to tell people, altruistic behavior doesn’t work in sustaining a commons, especially when it is consumed at near its carrying capacity.  And so the commons are eventually destroyed.  And again we have the problem of what to do.

The obvious answer is to police the commons.  Put in place a bureaucracy with regulatory and policing powers that sets and enforces the standards.  This is how we have come to deal with commons such as our air, publicly owned lands, rivers, and also social services.   The problem with the consumption policing is that it is expensive and its expense becomes unaffordable over time.  And it is very often totally ineffective, sometimes even accelerating the destruction of the commons.  Here we all know which commons we are talking about – think of Medicare and Medicaid, think of the various welfare programs which compel school dropouts and unemployment, think of public service employee pension agreements.

These are all commons that have broken their cost-to-consumer feedback mechanisms as taught by Hardin.  Voters and politicians each consume these government commons for their own purposes.  And each one takes a bit more benefit for himself without having to bear the cost of that increment, and thereby leaves the commons more depleted for the next round of consumers, until finally it becomes untenable to maintain, and it is destroyed.

Socialism is a form of governance based on an entire society unsustainably consuming from diverse commons set up to provide every possible benefit from cradle to grave.  But somehow it always leads to a tragic end when that personal responsibility link is replaced with the expectation of altruism or the police.

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on these and other themes in my Union columns, and on georgerebane.com where this transcript appears.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

Comments

[Douglas Keachie]

Suggest you check out Clair Tappaan Lodge and Heidelmann Lodge up on Donner Summit. About as old as you are and still going strong.

[billy T]

George, the simple illustrations are best. Makes it easy for simpletons such as I to comprehend, nay, apprehend. Skinny cows that are milk duds. Udder disgraces. Some mockingly say it is much more complex than the cookie example. Maybe so, but the results are the same. Results matter when the rubber meets the road. If the commons are so grand, why did such countries as Cuba and the former USSR increased police powers to keep people from leaving?

[THEMIKEYMCD]

The inefficiencies (corruption, collusion, malfeasance, mismanagement, etc) of planners to 'divvy up the goods in a fair manner' is but one ill of socialism. Socialism requires productive individuals to forfeit the fruits of their labor (by FORCE) for the good of the collective. It is nothing more than a lazy/uneducated/immoral mob stealing (by FORCE) from powerless individuals. Per Hayek, "Collectivism is slavery"

[Paul Emery]

George

There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with facts. The fact is that most of the "socialist" systems that you refer to are generally quite stable and since there are no modern examples of countries to compare them with that you favor there is no factual basis for this discussion.

This is pretty much a theoretical expostulation and not much more.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 319pm - this argument takes around a is a well circled barn. I welcome the contamination of which you speak, and I invite you to take your arguments about the stability of socialism to Brussels, Berlin, and Paris. Were they to have a shred of merit, the EU crisis would end in a day, and the euro would be re-established as a stable currency instead of the target of the most complicated fiscal break-up ever contemplated (and now planned).

And your continued attempt to diminish the source of the ills to socialism as something that I have uniquely concocted, while flattering, may only reflect the news sources you frequent. That you side with the progressives is understandable. But is inconceivable that you are unaware of the ongoing international debate about the viability of socialism, and the history of collectivist backtracking in governance to save nations.

[Paul Emery]

You neglect to acknowledge the possibility that the Euro system may make necessary adjustments. The bravado that "Every commons ends in tragedy" is unfounded and not justified by history. What you are saying is that EVERY nation in the world that has national health care, for example, is doomed to bayonets in the streets and tragedy. I suspect the push and pull that keeps such systems viable will continue and not end as you theorize. Yes, it is a theory. You should at least acknowledge that and not assume that just because you summarize the "tragic" conclusion until it happens it is just a theory of the future which, of course, you are entitled to. The economic crisis in Europe and elsewhere in the world is due to a lot more reasons than the hereditary dark nature of socialism that you spew.

In closing I would like to quote Winston Churchill who was indeed the father of universal health care in Britain. You need to find someone else to quote on this.

"The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available."

http://www.salon.com/2009/08/14/healthcare_28/

[THEMIKEYMCD]

Paul, is there a happy medium whereby an instrument of welfare (i.e. socialized health care, SS, etc) may be 'offered' and not 'forced' upon the citizenry?

In the case of health care (the 21st century right, LOL) we could completely free insurance companies and hospitals from ridiculous regulations [tort reform, a la carte plans, etc] AND offer a 'pooled government sponsored opt-in' option [basically the government manages an insurance arm]?

[Paul Emery]

Addendum

Obviously, Churchill's definition of Socialism did not include universal national health care which would explain the confusion you illustrate by using his words to condemn something he indeed supported and was proud of.

[George Rebane]

'The Grass is not Always Greener - a look at national healthcare systems around the world'
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

And here is an accounting of misery that just one country has suffered as it has delayed pulling back from socialism.
'Socialism Kills - The cost of delayed economic reform in India'
http://www.cato.org/pubs/dbp/dbp4.pdf

The progressive will argue the special cases and causes, but the common denominator of all is the worship of socialism as the failed theory of giving the most to the most. Every socialist country from the USSR, through the countries of eastern Europe, Asia, and now western Europe has either failed or doing its best to walk back from socialism before they fail. But this history and these data are invisible to the true believer in collectivism, which makes these arguments moot.

How many more millions must collectivism kill before its evils are recognized? (For the 20th century, see 'Death by Government' by Rummel that accounts for over 120M non-war related without adding in the estimated 100M+ that China added in its Cultural Revolution.)

[Paul Emery]

Mikey

You might be close to something there. A good step would be access to affordable insurance for all regardless of pre existing conditions. We of course would have to agree on a clear understanding of tort reform and what are "ridiculous regulations". My well documented friend with the heart attack would have preferred to have continued his insurance but when it became nearly 40% of his income and rising he to choose between housing and food and health insurance so he had no choice. Now of course, since he had a heart attack he will never be able to buy insurance and is hopelessly in debt for the rest of his life.

George
Confusing the evolution of modern western Europe with Communist China is pretty silly and has no relevance. They are entirely different situations. Your hero Churchill certainly knew the difference between totalitarianism and contemporary social evolution as I pointed out earlier today. Of course, you wouldn't vote for Churchill if he ran on his platform of the necessity of national health care which is far more extreme than anything Obama proposed.

"Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country,,,,,"

[Todd Juvinall]

Here is a link to help explain why socialized medicine may n ot be the panacea the left thinks it is. Now, the headline and sun-heading may make a liberal nervous about their position, but then again maybe not. It is fascinating how the "progressive" mind refuses to be progressive in the cure for the fixing of a fiscal travesty.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/22/nurses-unhappy-nhs-staff-budget-cuts

It is also amazing to me that the murder of 100 million people by their own socialist government is deemed irrelevant.

[billy T]

No doubt Obama leans towards the commons school of thought. His Grandpa was horribly mistreated by the Colonialists (British) which gave him a world view. First thing the new President did after his Muslin Tour was snub the British at the White House. Revenge is a dish best served cold. He attended Rev Wright's church for 20 years and developed another world view. His time working for ACORN gave him another world view. Now, his entire campaign is based on taxing the rich. Fair share and all that stuff. Don't know how taxing anybody will create jobs. Preaching the commons is not a very good job creator or solution. Poor Obama. He cannot run on his record, his economic policy, his healthcare triumph, his stimulus bill, his energy policy. He is reduced to running solely on taxing the rich. The left's resentment of a free people making personal choices and taking personal responsibility is beginning to show. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/12/nasty-comments-toward-ann-romney-cast-light-on-haters-who-cant-handle-feminine/