The Tragedy of the Commons - The Garrett Hardin Society
The Tragedy of the Commons - The Garrett Hardin Society
The Tragedy of the Commons - The Garrett Hardin Society
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Fall 2001T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACTwages, or to steel companies tohonor voluntary guidelines onprices? I can recall none. <strong>The</strong>rhetoric used on such occasions isdesigned to produce feelings <strong>of</strong> guiltin non-cooperators.For centuries it was assumedwithout pro<strong>of</strong> that guilt was avaluable, perhaps even anindispensable, ingredient <strong>of</strong> civilizedlife. Now, in this post-Freudianworld, we doubt it.Paul Goodman speaks from <strong>the</strong>modern point <strong>of</strong> view when he says:“No good has ever come fromfeeling guilty, nei<strong>the</strong>r intelligence,policy, nor compassion. <strong>The</strong> guiltydo not pay attention to <strong>the</strong> objectbut only to <strong>the</strong>mselves, and noteven to <strong>the</strong>ir own interests, whichmight make sense, but to <strong>the</strong>iranxieties.” 18One does not have to be apr<strong>of</strong>essional psychiatrist to see <strong>the</strong>consequences <strong>of</strong> anxiety. We in <strong>the</strong>Western World are just emergingfrom a dreadful two-centuries-longDark Ages <strong>of</strong> Eros that wassustained partly by prohibition laws,but perhaps more effectively by <strong>the</strong>anxiety-generating mechanisms <strong>of</strong>education. Alex Comfort has told<strong>the</strong> story well in <strong>The</strong> AnxietyMakers 19 ; it is not a pretty one.Since pro<strong>of</strong> is difficult, we mayeven concede that <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong>anxiety may sometimes, fromcertain points <strong>of</strong> view, be desirable.<strong>The</strong> larger question we should askis whe<strong>the</strong>r, as a matter <strong>of</strong> policy,we should ever encourage <strong>the</strong> use<strong>of</strong> a technique <strong>the</strong> tendency (if not<strong>the</strong> intention) <strong>of</strong> which ispsychologically pathogenic. Wehear much talk <strong>the</strong>se days <strong>of</strong>responsible parenthood; <strong>the</strong> coupledwords are incorporated into <strong>the</strong>titles <strong>of</strong> some organizations devotedto birth control. Some people haveproposed massive propagandacampaigns to instill respons ibilityinto <strong>the</strong> nation’s (or <strong>the</strong> world’s)breeders. But what is <strong>the</strong> meaning<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> word “responsibility” in thiscontext? Is it not merely a synonymfor <strong>the</strong> word “conscience?” Whenwe use <strong>the</strong> word “responsibility” in<strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> word “responsibility” is tobe used at all, I suggest that it be in<strong>the</strong> sense Charles Frankel uses it. 20“Responsibility,” says thisphilosopher, “is <strong>the</strong> product <strong>of</strong>definite social arrangements.”Notice that Frankel calls for soc ialarrangements — not propaganda.Mutual CoercionMutually AgreedUpon<strong>The</strong> social arrangements thatproduce responsibility arearrangements that create coercion,<strong>of</strong> some sort. Consider bankrobbing.<strong>The</strong> man who takes moneyfrom a bank acts as if <strong>the</strong> bankwere a commons. How do weprevent such action? Certainly notby trying to control his behaviorsolely by a verbal appeal to hissense <strong>of</strong> responsibility. Ra<strong>the</strong>r thanrely on propaganda we followFrankel’s lead and insist that a bankis not a commons; we seek <strong>the</strong>definite social arrangements thatwill keep it from becoming acommons. That we will <strong>the</strong>rebyinfringe on <strong>the</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong> would-berobbers we nei<strong>the</strong>r deny nor regret.<strong>The</strong> morality <strong>of</strong> bank-robbing isparticularly easy to understandbecause we accept completeprohibition <strong>of</strong> 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 in<strong>the</strong>ir use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>ferhim. A Madison Avenue man mightcall this persuasion; I prefer <strong>the</strong>greater candor <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> wordcoercion.Coercion is a dirty word to mostliberals now, but it need not foreverbe so. As with <strong>the</strong> four-letterwords, its dirtiness can be cleansedaway by exposure to <strong>the</strong> light, bysaying it over and over withoutapology or embarrassment. Tomany, <strong>the</strong> word coercion impliesarbitrary decisions <strong>of</strong> distant andirresponsible bureaucrats; but this isnot a necessary part <strong>of</strong> its meaning.<strong>The</strong> only kind <strong>of</strong> coercion Irecommend is mutual coercion,mutually agreed upon by <strong>the</strong>majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong>m.But we accept compulsory taxesbecause we recognize that33