OK. I absolutely agree that management of the commons is a central issue and one that has not received enough attention. One reason for that is that we are not comfortable thinking about commons -- and the extreme every-man-for-himself free marketers prefer it that way. But ultimately we are living in a commons. The environment is a commons; our infrastructure is a commons; the government is a commons. We have to pay more attention to managing it or (as you say) it will collapse. The first point, however, is to recognize that it's not Communistic to talk about a commons. Unfortunately we haven't even reached that point in our public discussion.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Russ, > > There may not be simple one-line solutions, but there are simple one-line > necessities, that any solution needs to include. > > > > One is to counteract the problem that investing in the use of a commons to > multiply your returns from it will invariably cause it to collapse *unless > * you switch your returns to divestment before that occurs. The > obligation to self-limit the compound amplification of resource > exploitations is missing from all the widely discussed management proposals > I know of. > > > > Phil > > > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On > Behalf Of *Russ Abbott > *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2008 2:56 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Effective government; was: Willful Ignorance > > > > I see this as involving two fundamental issues: governing a commons and > group effectiveness. > > - There is a lot of current work on governing a commons. The best known > name is Elinor > Ostrom<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cogs.indiana.edu%2Fpeople%2Fhomepages%2Fostrom.html&ei=kl7qSKfcIYKmsAOkmoWTCg&usg=AFQjCNEEFEFbt30d32Ibv1TgyvczfMdnlQ&sig2=8fhZnTEsFKK8xjiMcA-32Q>. > > > > - The issue of groups, their effectiveness, how evolution selects on > groups as well as on individuals has been studied (and publicized) most > recently by David Sloan > Wilson<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fevolution.binghamton.edu%2Fdswilson%2F&ei=3V7qSKWKM4KMsAPe87SZCg&usg=AFQjCNEh5yajO931TbTPBmgv0J8AtID1ig&sig2=5tuzmrB21Zn2jzOw4BBoNw> > . > > Both of these issues are extraordinarily important. They are both relevant > to effective government. But they don't offer simple one-line solutions. > > -- Russ > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:04 AM, glen e. p. ropella < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thus spake Steve Smith circa 10/06/2008 10:46 AM: > > > That said, I'm not offering a better plan, though I agree that big > campaign > > contributions are a problem in almost every case. > > But big campaigns (and big campaign contributions) are just a symptom of > non-local (big) government. As long as we have a single government that > governs 3.5 million square miles, we will have complex laws with lots of > loopholes and aggressive special interests who drive campaigns (with > money). > > The problem, in my view, lies with the way government accumulates upward > to a peak. Granted, we have a decent system so that government > accumulates upward to 3 (or 4, if you include the free press) peaks. > But, it's still going from 300 million humans and 3.5 million mi^2 up to > 3 peaks and 68 mi^2. > > I would suggest that the myriad problems with our government don't lie > in any one identifiable cause, but are instead peppered throughout the > accumulation... the way household government accumulates to neighborhood > associations, villages, cities, counties, states, feds, etc. > > I'm totally ignorant of political science; but I wonder how much > coherent work is out there on various objective-satisficing methods for > accumulating government? I'm not talking about silo'ed research like > "methods of state government" or "methods of county government", but > methods for accumulating all the way up from (psychological) > self-government of the individual to President, Congress, and the > courts. Surely there exists some (by now, half-insane) systems theory > people out there who've been ranting about this sort of accumulation, eh? > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
