In the current issue of Monde diplomatique (one of the best publications that can be read on a weekly basis) the story is rolled from the deck chairs. I try to retell about:
are on a cruise ship deck chairs it, which may use all the passengers. At the same time can take only a third of the passengers on it place. Initially, the solution for almost all the passengers onto the deck chairs: If a free, use it another.The story is easy to interpret: it is about commons, commons sometimes translated, but with better public goods. The question is how come it was that these public goods are viewed as the legitimate possession, and the author argues in the MD einleichtend to the effect that the initial projection, the one by the surprising property claim has secured sufficient to defend this claim. One could, such an example, the deck chair during the time in which one does not use it, rent, and pay the income, a guard who looks after the deck chair, etc. - while the recliner without passengers have no way to generate revenue by build merely an organization to take on the reclining chairs, so: be if commons once owned by someone, it is difficult to stop this unlawful possession, as it is easier to defend a property as the property to go from something.
But after the first passengers have made the experience that all the deck chairs occupied were when they wanted to put on, they come up with an idea: you could reserve your lounge chair with a towel. Together, they fit in each case on the fact that no one takes a reserved beach chair, and then the following situation: One-third of the passengers can use while sailing a deck chair, two thirds can not.
Now there is in terms of commons a second problem: 1968, Garrett Hardin argued in this Article , there was a Tragedy of the Commons which derives from the fact that public goods (eg commons) are used (eg all their animals first as often as possible graze there), so that they go ultimately based on and no one has anything like this. It is better to give them to someone, so then that person also has an interest in the commons (which is then no more) to maintain. In another article in the MD behind the misunderstanding is cleared up: commons can not imagine such a paradise that has been created by someone and used free of charge and over-exploited may be, but like a picnic, something to which all contribute and all can take something. Ideally, the author would have provided public goods with a price, say for example the consumption of resources, where the money is used again to ensure that these resources are used sustainably.
would be transferred to our deck chairs are called this, the ship owner should make the deck chairs free of charge and tell you how much does an hour lawn chair use, or better yet, distribute tokens to all passengers, which is entitled to one hour deckchair use.
are now of course the ownership exist today. Almost everything that people have can someone owns, and the question, he may take possession of him / should / can not be assessed easily. has this whole argument, different from what one might think not to do with envy: But the question of whether we as land, food, natural resources (oil, etc.) have in general may or may have to a certain extent (extent: more than you can ever use in life). The answer is no, because even if I earn money ", I'll buy the land from someone who bought it from someone ... who has bought from someone who has simply placed on his property because there was no one is added.
This question is an old, but it is not solved to say that communism had failed and apparently the people would have land. Resolved so it could be if we were to expropriate all the people giving them the land which they owned, 10 years free of rent leaves and after 10 years begins to require a lease price, with the lease agreements are concluded in the long run, that the use of land and an investment into property is possible and appropriate. What you could do with the money, should consider all yourself.
0 comments:
Post a Comment