The Tragedy of the Commons - The Garrett Hardin Society

Fall 2001T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACTwages, or to steel companies tohonor voluntary guidelines onprices? I can recall none. Therhetoric used on such occasions isdesigned to produce feelings of guiltin non-cooperators.For centuries it was assumedwithout proof that guilt was avaluable, perhaps even anindispensable, ingredient of civilizedlife. Now, in this post-Freudianworld, we doubt it.Paul Goodman speaks from themodern point of view when he says:“No good has ever come fromfeeling guilty, neither intelligence,policy, nor compassion. The guiltydo not pay attention to the objectbut only to themselves, and noteven to their own interests, whichmight make sense, but to theiranxieties.” 18One does not have to be aprofessional psychiatrist to see theconsequences of anxiety. We in theWestern World are just emergingfrom a dreadful two-centuries-longDark Ages of Eros that wassustained partly by prohibition laws,but perhaps more effectively by theanxiety-generating mechanisms ofeducation. Alex Comfort has toldthe story well in The AnxietyMakers 19 ; it is not a pretty one.Since proof is difficult, we mayeven concede that the results ofanxiety may sometimes, fromcertain points of view, be desirable.The larger question we should askis whether, as a matter of policy,we should ever encourage the useof a technique the tendency (if notthe intention) of which ispsychologically pathogenic. Wehear much talk these days ofresponsible parenthood; the coupledwords are incorporated into thetitles of some organizations devotedto birth control. Some people haveproposed massive propagandacampaigns to instill respons ibilityinto the nation’s (or the world’s)breeders. But what is the meaningof the word “responsibility” in thiscontext? Is it not merely a synonymfor the word “conscience?” Whenwe use the word “responsibility” inthe absence of substantialsanctions, are we not trying tobrowbeat a free man in a commonsinto acting against his own interest?Responsibility is a verbal counterfeitfor a substantial quid pro quo. It isan attempt to get something fornothing.If the word “responsibility” is tobe used at all, I suggest that it be inthe sense Charles Frankel uses it. 20“Responsibility,” says thisphilosopher, “is the product ofdefinite social arrangements.”Notice that Frankel calls for soc ialarrangements — not propaganda.Mutual CoercionMutually AgreedUponThe social arrangements thatproduce responsibility arearrangements that create coercion,of some sort. Consider bankrobbing.The man who takes moneyfrom a bank acts as if the bankwere a commons. How do weprevent such action? Certainly notby trying to control his behaviorsolely by a verbal appeal to hissense of responsibility. Rather thanrely on propaganda we followFrankel’s lead and insist that a bankis not a commons; we seek thedefinite social arrangements thatwill keep it from becoming acommons. That we will therebyinfringe on the freedom of would-berobbers we neither deny nor regret.The morality of bank-robbing isparticularly easy to understandbecause we accept completeprohibition of this activity. We arewilling to say, “Thou shalt not robbanks,” without providing forexceptions. But temperance alsocan be created by coercion. Taxingis a good coercive device. To keepdowntown shoppers temperate intheir use of parking space weintroduce parking meters for shortperiods, and traffic fines for longerones. We need not actually forbid acitizen to park as long as he wantsto; we need merely to make itincreasingly expensive for him to doso. Not prohibition, but carefullybiased options are what we offerhim. A Madison Avenue man mightcall this persuasion; I prefer thegreater candor of the wordcoercion.Coercion is a dirty word to mostliberals now, but it need not foreverbe so. As with the four-letterwords, its dirtiness can be cleansedaway by exposure to the light, bysaying it over and over withoutapology or embarrassment. Tomany, the word coercion impliesarbitrary decisions of distant andirresponsible bureaucrats; but this isnot a necessary part of its meaning.The only kind of coercion Irecommend is mutual coercion,mutually agreed upon by themajority of the people affected.To say that we mutually agreeto coercion is not to say that we arerequired to enjoy it, or even topretend we enjoy it. Who enjoystaxes? We all grumble about them.But we accept compulsory taxesbecause we recognize that33