You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Should anarchists abolish the commons?
This makes sense, but you still need some way of preventing pillaging of the environment (for instance, overfishing in the ocean). If there's not government limiting how much you can catch, or what seasons you can catch it during, how does the community protect the long term viability of the resource? Shaming and reputation is one way. Blockchains can facilitate this by, for instance, creating completely trackable supply chains thereby making it easier for people to know whether what they are purchasing "complies" with society's values or not.
No. If someone overfishes the ocean, then there's no more fish. People will figure out something else to eat until the fish breed back to a higher population. Not to mention, what century are you living in? Aquaponics is a better investment than a boat.
I'm late to my own discussion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your approach is what I'd term "outcome-agnostic." You believe that the outcome of a societal structure is self-justified, and all outcomes are equally moral. So if the oceans are overfished and we cause mass extinctions of ocean critters, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It's justified by the fact that it happened.
I think you and I fundamentally disagree there. I view a world in which humans have caused mass extinctions as a worse world than one in which we haven't. Even shy of mass extinctions, I believe that it's both possible and desirable to avoid crashing fish populations and having to "wait till they breed back."
I'm pointing this out because I want the specifics of our disagreement to be crystal clear. We may or may not disagree about other things also, but if you're truly outcome-agnostic, then if we argue about those other things, we'll only be talking past each other.