Tragedy of the Commons = Tragedy of The Private Property!
Aozotorp
MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2001
USA
A LETTER FROM ST. PETERSBURG, FLA
To deter burglary, keep an eye on that flowering verbena
A beautiful garden may be the homeowner's dream, but some take an illegal route
to achieve it. Across America, plant theft is on the rise.
By Lynn Waddell
This spring, Laura Keane donned straw hat and garden gloves for another go at
landscaping her husband's Spanish-style office building. But she didn't dare
plant anything she thought would be temptingly attractive.
That's because for the past two years, the colorful bromeliads, palms, and
blooming flowers have been stolen.
"I thought if I planted something ... ugly, that no one would want them," Mrs.
Keane says.
But she was wrong. Small holes are the only sign that even some "ugly"
bromeliads were ever bedded in this older St. Petersburg, Fla., neighborhood.
Plant thieves, who typically strike in the night with hand trowels, shovels,
buckets, and leaves of larceny in their hearts, made off with a handful of the
spiny plants.
It's the shady backlash to the Martha Stewart trend of lawn beautification.
Everyone now has to have that "Better Homes & Garden" lawn, but not everyone
can or will pay for it. They just take someone else's.
It's difficult to know how pervasive plant plunderings are in the United
States, since there's no national crime watch on plant thievery - unlike
Britain, whose Scotland Yard has a special garden-theft unit, and where
insurance companies estimate that 1 in 7 gardens are burglarized every summer.
Still, anecdotal evidence in Florida suggests that if the thievery hasn't hit
you, there's a good chance it's hit someone you know. Elsewhere in the nation,
there are enough police reports and gripes on gardening websites to show it
isn't just a Southern frailty.
When the verbena in Steve Pankow's Medford, Ore., front yard began dripping
deep purple blooms last year, temptation overtook one plant lover. While Mr.
Pankow was at work, a neighbor spotted a woman pull her station wagon up to his
flower bed, open the tailgate, dig up the plants, and toss them in her car. The
neighbor told police it looked as if other plants were already in the car.
Police tracked the car's license plate number to a home about 10 miles away,
where a woman admitted she had lifted the plants. She said she did it to
fulfill a deal to landscape her mother's business, which was only two blocks
from Pankow's home. For various reasons, Pankow chose not press charges.
Green-thumb burglars seem to have even fewer scruples about plucking flora from
community or commercial property. Downtown Minneapolis high-rises have been the
scene of many a horticulture crime this year, with thousands of dollars worth
of plants taken from lobbies and atria. Some apartment buildings in New York
have taken to chaining down trees and shrubs. Along the Long Island expressway,
government workers planted shrubs and evergreens; almost all were stolen within
six to eight weeks.
Greenery grabbers backed their pickup up to a Zephyrhills, Fla., park restroom
building this spring and dug up every liriope and Mexican heather plant
surrounding it - about 70 in all, says Shane LaBlanc, parks and facilities
director. "I think it's just pretty desperate," he says. "I think it's somebody
landscaping their house, and they're just cutting corners." But it's at the
city's expense. In all, the city lost about $750 worth of plants.
Despite much publicity about the Zephyrhills park thefts, the plant rustlers
were never arrested. In fact, it's rare that plant thieves are ever caught,
says Bill Robinson, a police information officer in San Diego.
In response, a new industry has sprouted to stop plant thieves. Electronix
Systems Central Station Alarms in Huntington Station, N.Y., sells an alarm to
install in yards that emits ear-piercing messages such as, "Hey, you. Get off
my lawn!" or, "I'm calling the cops!"
To make evergreens unattractive to saw-wielding Christmas-tree scavengers, a
Cornell University gardener invented the "ugly mix." The gooey mixture of
hydrated limestone and food coloring turns the trees temporarily pink.
For Bonsai tree owners, there's a solution that treats your plant as a pet.
Just insert a computer chip into your tree, and if it ever wanders away and is
recovered, you can prove it's yours.
But if you've already blown your budget on plants, try making your pooch sleep
outside at night, or mulching your pretty plants with manure. For the
canine-deprived, try what Keane in St. Petersburg resorted to: replacing your
stolen treasures with thorny plants. A thorny rose may never have smelled so
sweet.
Unknown
>
>http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/06/18/fpcon-natl.shtml
>
>MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2001
>
>
>
>USA
>A LETTER FROM ST. PETERSBURG, FLA
>To deter burglary, keep an eye on that flowering verbena
>
>A beautiful garden may be the homeowner's dream, but some take an illegal route
>to achieve it. Across America, plant theft is on the rise.
>
>By Lynn Waddell
>
>
>
>This spring, Laura Keane donned straw hat and garden gloves for another go at
>landscaping her husband's Spanish-style office building. But she didn't dare
>plant anything she thought would be temptingly attractive.
>
>That's because for the past two years, the colorful bromeliads, palms, and
>blooming flowers have been stolen.
>
>"I thought if I planted something ... ugly, that no one would want them," Mrs.
>Keane says.
>
>But she was wrong. Small holes are the only sign that even some "ugly"
>bromeliads were ever bedded in this older St. Petersburg, Fla., neighborhood.
>Plant thieves, who typically strike in the night with hand trowels, shovels,
>buckets, and leaves of larceny in their hearts, made off with a handful of the
>spiny plants.
>
In other words, it's common theft - no different than someone stealing a car
stereo, bicycle, or lawn furnishing. It is, in fact a _VIOLATION_ of private
property rights.
So what's your point, Donald?
And did you note this...
>Along the Long Island expressway,
>government workers planted shrubs and evergreens; almost all were stolen within
>six to eight weeks.
>
That's a great example of the tragedy of the commons - theft of public property.
As well as this one:
>Greenery grabbers backed their pickup up to a Zephyrhills, Fla., park restroom
>building this spring and dug up every liriope and Mexican heather plant
>surrounding it - about 70 in all, says Shane LaBlanc, parks and facilities
>director. "I think it's just pretty desperate," he says. "I think it's somebody
>landscaping their house, and they're just cutting corners." But it's at the
>city's expense. In all, the city lost about $750 worth of plants.
>
>Despite much publicity about the Zephyrhills park thefts, the plant rustlers
>were never arrested. In fact, it's rare that plant thieves are ever caught,
>says Bill Robinson, a police information officer in San Diego.
>
And because public resources can't be stretched to prioritize protecting
commonly-held plantings from theft, this tragedy will continue. On the other
hand, those who are having plants stolen from their property _CAN_, if they so
choose to do so, make the protection of their private property their own
priority.
Heck, I keep getting pop-up banner ads at places like Yahoo advertising
something called the X-10 camera. For $79 a private property owner can buy this
tiny hidden video camera which broadcasts to their VCR. Pop-in an 8-hour tape,
and you can see who comes to pay a visit in the middle of the night to steal
your plants!
So what was the point, Donald? You once again buttressed my position.
- Andrew Langer
--
Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
Donald L Ferrt
There are laws against stealing on Public Property also!
>
> And did you note this...
>
> >Along the Long Island expressway,
> >government workers planted shrubs and evergreens; almost all were stolen within
> >six to eight weeks.
> >
>
> That's a great example of the tragedy of the commons - theft of public property.
No, Its a great example of getting what you don't really deserve =
Which of course our country was founded on = Take it from da Indians!
>
> As well as this one:
>
> >Greenery grabbers backed their pickup up to a Zephyrhills, Fla., park restroom
> >building this spring and dug up every liriope and Mexican heather plant
> >surrounding it - about 70 in all, says Shane LaBlanc, parks and facilities
> >director. "I think it's just pretty desperate," he says. "I think it's somebody
> >landscaping their house, and they're just cutting corners." But it's at the
> >city's expense. In all, the city lost about $750 worth of plants.
> >
> >Despite much publicity about the Zephyrhills park thefts, the plant rustlers
> >were never arrested. In fact, it's rare that plant thieves are ever caught,
> >says Bill Robinson, a police information officer in San Diego.
> >
>
> And because public resources can't be stretched to prioritize protecting
> commonly-held plantings from theft, this tragedy will continue. On the other
> hand, those who are having plants stolen from their property _CAN_, if they so
> choose to do so, make the protection of their private property their own
> priority.
No! They said it is rare that plant theives are caught! Not that it
is rare that public plant theives are caught = Kind of like the drug
pushes who lives behind a gated community = He says there are nut
cases out there = he should know he was and is one!
>
> Heck, I keep getting pop-up banner ads at places like Yahoo advertising
> something called the X-10 camera. For $79 a private property owner can buy this
> tiny hidden video camera which broadcasts to their VCR. Pop-in an 8-hour tape,
> and you can see who comes to pay a visit in the middle of the night to steal
> your plants!
And the article mentions that people are rarely prosecuted stealing
public or private plants = There are much more serious stuff going on
out there!
>
> So what was the point, Donald? You once again buttressed my position.
>
> - Andrew Langer
What is my point = surely not buttressing your position. By the way
did you read your buddy's(Tibor R. Machan) article in the Summer 2001
issue if "fi" ???? Entitle "Radical Free Envrionmentalism??? What
did you think of it???
http://www.spectacle.org/196/common.html
The Republicans and the Tragedy of the Commons
Every once in a while, someone invents an operative metaphor, and is
gratefully remembered ever after. Garrett Hardin did it in 1968 when
he wrote his article Tragedy of the Commons.
Hardin postulated an agrarian community where all citizens graze their
livestock on a commonly owned field. The field can only support a
limited number of animals before it is denuded and ruined.
Hardin pointed out that the cost benefit analysis performed by an
individual townsperson using the commons will always lead to the
conclusion that the immediate benefit of adding another animal far
outweighs the remoter, less visible harm of degradation of the
commons. Whats more, the benefit from the additional animal belongs to
the townsperson alone, while the harm to the commons is shared
proportionally across all its users.
Looked at from a slightly different perspective, the tragedy of the
commons is an illustration of a Prisoner's Dilemma. Adding an animal
is playing the betrayal card, while all players deciding not to add an
animal represents cooperation in preserving the resource.
It seems self-evident to me that Republican environmental policy
promotes the tragedy of the commons. The Contract Republicans, by
moving to slash the government's role in environmental protection, are
putting the decision-making back in the "invisible hand" of the
marketplace, which will always, inevitably decide to add that
additional animal to the commons. One wishes that politics included an
annual ritual in which all of our elected officials took scopalomine,
then answered questions. I would like to hear Mr. Gingrich's honest
critique of Hardin's metaphor.
I looked at Mr. Gingrich's To Renew America (Harper Collins 1995)
hoping to find the answer. Sure enough, he has a chapter entitled
"Tending the Gardens of the Earth: Scientifically Based
Environmentalism". But, like most of the rest of the book, its a lot
of empty words; he never so much as acknowledges that there is a
tragedy going on. Instead, in classic Gingrichian style, he's all over
the map, alternating between homely (and somewhat strange) anecdotes,
attacks on his adversaries, and crackpot recommendations:
First, he establishes his own credentials as an environmentalist; he
caught snakes as a kid, and has donated some animals to the Atlanta
Zoo.
However, "man dominates the planet". Though we have "an absolute
obligation to minimize damage to the natural world," he is "not a
preservationist," which, to him, means acting "as if we don't exist".
A veiled reference to "natural rhythms....of which we may not be
aware" is probably intended as a statement that global warming is a
natural phenomenon, though he does not come out and say so. And he
comments in passing that captive breeding in zoos may be a more
efficient way of preserving species than actually trying to save their
natural environments.
We should become "gardeners of the Earth" and have three basic
motivations to do so: aesthetics, public health and new knowledge.
Gingrich's failure to mention the almighty dollar as a reason to
protect the environment speaks volumes; nowhere else in the book is he
shy about money as a motivation; for example, his chapter on the
Internet is about markets, markets, markets, but never free speech.
Gingrich fails to explain why companies, left to their own devices,
will see much value in aesthetics or public health, or even in new
knowledge (unless it soon produces money).
On the aesthetics score he mentions how much he enjoys the
Chattahoochee River; as for health, he mentions the improvement in air
quality in New York and L.A. But he nowhere mentions that these
environmental victories are due not to businesses, but to the Clean
Water and Clean Air acts of the 1970's--legislation that the contract
Republicans are doing all they can to strip. Ludicrously, in fact, he
implies that the credit for a clean environment goes to American
business: The former Soviet empire "is also vivid proof that
government-controlled economies are much worse for the environment
than free-market ones." Then, on the new knowledge point, he gives the
show away: "To get the best ecosystem for our buck, we should use
decentralized and entrepreneurial strategies rather than
command-and-control bureaucratic efforts." But what is the incentive?
Why will entrepreneurs ever protect the environment?
To answer this last question, Mr. Gingrich reaches deep into his sack
and, as he so often does, produces a little rubber mouse of an idea:
he tells the story of a constituent of his who makes a living
recycling bottles into t-shirts. "Linda has a good chance of doing
well financially by doing good environmentally. This is how a healthy
free market in a free country ought to work." That "good chance" is a
nice touch; he cannot even say she is doing well. By now, Mr. Gingrich
has in fact answered my question, but very dishonestly: There is no
tragedy of the commons. Somehow, the townspeople, without the
intervention of government, will find it financially advantageous not
to add that last animal.
In classic fashion, having proclaimed his love of the environment, Mr.
Gingrich sprinkles his chapter with proclamations that nothing works.
Superfund regulations cost too much money for the effect they produce.
The money we spend to save one species could have been spent to save
thirty instead. "[T]he asbestos program probably wasted $5 billion
without significantly improving public health." (Anyone else here old
enough to remember workers with their lungs totally destroyed by
asbestos?) Gingrich's tactic is not unique to this chapter of the
book; his essay on gun control similarly spends a lot more time
telling us why no effort made by Democrats has been effective than it
does telling us why we ought to have guns everywhere.
Here is the coup de grace: "After I was elected to Congress, I found
that national environmental organizations were all too often simply an
extension of the left wing of the Democratic Party." This is the
ultimate rhetorical trick: Mr. Gingrich is an environmentalist, and
the environmentalists are Communists, so only Mr. Gingrich is a true
environmentalist.
Mr. Gingrich is arguing what lawyers call the "kettle case". Sued for
breaking a kettle he had borrowed, a man defended himself as follows:
1. I never borrowed the kettle. 2. The kettle was never broken. 3. It
was already broken when I borrowed it. Mr. Gingrich says that business
is an excellent steward of the environment (never borrowed the
kettle); the environment is fine (never broken); and that nothing can
be done to address environmental problems anyway (already broken when
borrowed). The most charitable thing I can say about the Speaker is
that, had he lived in the 4th century BC, he would have been a passing
rhetorician, but no Socrates.
Coincidentally, today's New York Times carried a description of the
end result of a tragedy of the commons allowed to play itself out over
the decades. The Pacific island of Nauru was rich in guano, and its
residents authorized it to be strip mined, with no thought for their
future. "Inch for inch, Nauru is the most environmentally ravaged
nation on earth. So much of the island has been devoured by
strip-mining begun 90 years ago that Nauruans face the prospect that
they may have to abandon their bleak, depleted home. If it comes to
that, they are expecting the outside world...to help them find a new
island." ("A Pacific Island is Stripped of Everything", NYT December
10, p. A3.) They have millions of dollars stashed away, no place to
live, are racked with diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity due to
an unhealthy diet of imported, canned foods, and have a life
expectancy of less than 60 years. They are the Yorick's skull to our
Hamlet (perhaps Mr. Gingrich is Polonius). And there are no new
islands out there.
Unknown
says...
Yes, there are, but like any other public policy, it is a matter of
prioritization as to what you want to enforce - and thus more difficult for the
government to be an effective land-use manager.
>>
>> And did you note this...
>>
>> >Along the Long Island expressway,
>> >government workers planted shrubs and evergreens; almost all were stolen within
>> >six to eight weeks.
>> >
>>
>> That's a great example of the tragedy of the commons - theft of public property.
>
>No, Its a great example of getting what you don't really deserve =
>Which of course our country was founded on = Take it from da Indians!
>
Actually, the theft of land from the indians is an interesting hybrid of the
violation of private property rights and the theories of the tragedy of the
commons.
But this is entirely different than people abusing public resources - which is
what your example discusses.
>
>>
>> As well as this one:
>>
>> >Greenery grabbers backed their pickup up to a Zephyrhills, Fla., park restroom
>> >building this spring and dug up every liriope and Mexican heather plant
>> >surrounding it - about 70 in all, says Shane LaBlanc, parks and facilities
>> >director. "I think it's just pretty desperate," he says. "I think it's somebody
>> >landscaping their house, and they're just cutting corners." But it's at the
>> >city's expense. In all, the city lost about $750 worth of plants.
>> >
>> >Despite much publicity about the Zephyrhills park thefts, the plant rustlers
>> >were never arrested. In fact, it's rare that plant thieves are ever caught,
>> >says Bill Robinson, a police information officer in San Diego.
>> >
>>
>> And because public resources can't be stretched to prioritize protecting
>> commonly-held plantings from theft, this tragedy will continue. On the other
>> hand, those who are having plants stolen from their property _CAN_, if they so
>> choose to do so, make the protection of their private property their own
>> priority.
>
>No! They said it is rare that plant theives are caught! Not that it
>is rare that public plant theives are caught =
Officer Robinson was specifically discussing the thefts of the flowers in the
park, but either way it doesn't matter: individual private property owners can
make the protection of their own plants a priority, much like the farmer takes
steps to prevent his crops from being stolen, or preyed upon by animals.
> Kind of like the drug
>pushes who lives behind a gated community = He says there are nut
>cases out there = he should know he was and is one!
>
Another typical Don Ferry red herring. This has nothing to do with the subject
at hand.
>
>
>
>>
>> Heck, I keep getting pop-up banner ads at places like Yahoo advertising
>> something called the X-10 camera. For $79 a private property owner can buy this
>> tiny hidden video camera which broadcasts to their VCR. Pop-in an 8-hour tape,
>> and you can see who comes to pay a visit in the middle of the night to steal
>> your plants!
>
>And the article mentions that people are rarely prosecuted stealing
>public or private plants = There are much more serious stuff going on
>out there!
>
Point is, Donald, if individual property owners gather the evidence for
themselves, chances are they are going to know who it is who is stealing their
plants. Then they can take the steps to figure out what to do about it, from
posting the video on the web, to getting the local news media involved, to
calling Fox and getting the video on "America's Dumbest Criminals" or some
schlock show like that.
Or they can figure out what time the thieves show up and wait for them. I doubt
that flower stealers are going to be some great threat to life and limb for the
property owner, especially if they carry a hoe or rake with them.
>
>>
>> So what was the point, Donald? You once again buttressed my position.
>>
>
>
>What is my point = surely not buttressing your position.
And yet you do it all the same.
> By the way
>did you read your buddy's(Tibor R. Machan) article in the Summer 2001
>issue if "fi" ???? Entitle "Radical Free Envrionmentalism??? What
>did you think of it???
>
Haven't seen it yet, but I will poke around and get back to you.
>http://www.spectacle.org/196/common.html
>
>The Republicans and the Tragedy of the Commons
Tell you what - why don't people just read Hardin's original article for
themselves:
http://www.flsuspop.org/docs/The%20Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons.htm
The Tragedy of the Commons
Garrett Hardin (1968)
"The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin, Science, 162(1968):1243-1248.
At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, J.B. Wiesner
and H.F. York concluded that: "Both sides in the arms race are…confronted by the
dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national
security. It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no
technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the
area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the
situation.'' [1]
I would like to focus your attention not on the subject of the article (national
security in a nuclear world) but on the kind of conclusion they reached, namely
that there is no technical solution to the problem. An implicit and almost
universal assumption of discussions published in professional and semipopular
scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has a technical
solution. A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only
in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the
way of change in human values or ideas of morality.
In our day (though not in earlier times) technical solutions are always welcome.
Because of previous failures in prophecy, it takes courage to assert that a
desired technical solution is not possible. Wiesner and York exhibited this
courage; publishing in a science journal, they insisted that the solution to the
problem was not to be found in the natural sciences. They cautiously qualified
their statement with the phrase, "It is our considered professional
judgment...." Whether they were right or not is not the concern of the present
article. Rather, the concern here is with the important concept of a class of
human problems which can be called "no technical solution problems," and more
specifically, with the identification and discussion of one of these.
It is easy to show that the class is not a null class. Recall the game of
tick-tack-toe. Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe?"
It is well known that I cannot, if I assume (in keeping with the conventions of
game theory) that my opponent understands the game perfectly. Put another way,
there is no "technical solution" to the problem. I can win only by giving a
radical meaning to the word "win." I can hit my opponent over the head; or I can
falsify the records. Every way in which I "win" involves, in some sense, an
abandonment of the game, as we intuitively understand it. (I can also, of
course, openly abandon the game -- refuse to play it. This is what most adults
do.)
The class of "no technical solution problems" has members. My thesis is that the
"population problem," as conventionally conceived, is a member of this class.
How it is conventionally conceived needs some comment. It is fair to say that
most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to
avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges
they now enjoy. They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of
wheat will solve the problem -- technologically. I try to show here that the
solution they seek cannot be found. The population problem cannot be solved in a
technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the game of
tick-tack-toe.
----end introduction---
While some of Hardin's theses were wrong, the central theme (that of private
property versus public property) was correct.