conservative critique of commons in Germany
Dear Stefan, I was told this was a conservative counter-argument against the commons in Germany, would it be possible to tell us the gist of it in english? eventually for publication? see http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/OMIL3U,0,Vom_eigenen_Garten_zur_weltweiten_R... -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Dear Michel, just flew over the article, and find completely not interesting enough to invest more time. The authors simply didn't get the point, or, I guess, they intentionally miss it. Very brief the content: - commons discourse is backward oriented - throws away 200 years of scientific knowledge - argues only morally - expresses discomfort with technology and modernity - there is no contradiction between common and private good - it is rather a continuum, because private property is limited too - commons = common property = public good - Hardin was right, the tragedy of the commons "is an historical fact" - only private property can limit total waste of environment - sucessful example: CO2 certificates (and trade with them) - the second part of the article is about "europe as a common good" (where common good = public good = state governed good) Found no serious counter argument. Conservatives do not require to be serious, they simply play with prejudices. Maybe Silke or Brigitte are more gracious with their judgement... Ciao, Stefan PS: Please change my address to [email protected] in your address list. On 2011-07-20 04:40, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Dear Stefan,
I was told this was a conservative counter-argument against the commons in Germany,
would it be possible to tell us the gist of it in english? eventually for publication?
see http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/OMIL3U,0,Vom_eigenen_Garten_zur_weltw eiten_Ressourcenverteilung_Essay.html
-- Start here: www.meretz.de
thanks for this Stefan! On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Stefan Meretz <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Michel,
just flew over the article, and find completely not interesting enough to invest more time. The authors simply didn't get the point, or, I guess, they intentionally miss it. Very brief the content: - commons discourse is backward oriented - throws away 200 years of scientific knowledge - argues only morally - expresses discomfort with technology and modernity - there is no contradiction between common and private good - it is rather a continuum, because private property is limited too - commons = common property = public good - Hardin was right, the tragedy of the commons "is an historical fact" - only private property can limit total waste of environment - sucessful example: CO2 certificates (and trade with them) - the second part of the article is about "europe as a common good" (where common good = public good = state governed good)
Found no serious counter argument. Conservatives do not require to be serious, they simply play with prejudices.
Maybe Silke or Brigitte are more gracious with their judgement...
Ciao, Stefan
PS: Please change my address to [email protected] in your address list.
On 2011-07-20 04:40, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Dear Stefan,
I was told this was a conservative counter-argument against the commons in Germany,
would it be possible to tell us the gist of it in english? eventually for publication?
see http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/OMIL3U,0,Vom_eigenen_Garten_zur_weltw eiten_Ressourcenverteilung_Essay.html
-- Start here: www.meretz.de
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
I absolutely agree with stefan, no more points to add! regards brigitte Am Sonntag, den 24.07.2011, 11:20 +0200 schrieb Stefan Meretz:
Dear Michel,
just flew over the article, and find completely not interesting enough to invest more time. The authors simply didn't get the point, or, I guess, they intentionally miss it. Very brief the content: - commons discourse is backward oriented - throws away 200 years of scientific knowledge - argues only morally - expresses discomfort with technology and modernity - there is no contradiction between common and private good - it is rather a continuum, because private property is limited too - commons = common property = public good - Hardin was right, the tragedy of the commons "is an historical fact" - only private property can limit total waste of environment - sucessful example: CO2 certificates (and trade with them) - the second part of the article is about "europe as a common good" (where common good = public good = state governed good)
Found no serious counter argument. Conservatives do not require to be serious, they simply play with prejudices.
Maybe Silke or Brigitte are more gracious with their judgement...
Ciao, Stefan
PS: Please change my address to [email protected] in your address list.
On 2011-07-20 04:40, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Dear Stefan,
I was told this was a conservative counter-argument against the commons in Germany,
would it be possible to tell us the gist of it in english? eventually for publication?
see http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/OMIL3U,0,Vom_eigenen_Garten_zur_weltw eiten_Ressourcenverteilung_Essay.html
-- Gehe nicht wohin der Weg führen mag, sondern dorthin, wo kein Weg führt und hinterlasse eine Spur. (Jean Paul)
Hi all, I agree as well, 100%, but I have two points to add: It looks like they don't know what they want: on one hand they damn the state (as an alternative to the market) on the other hand they praise it, (f.i.: nobody needs the commons because there are limits to private property everywhere, btw - that's what they call the "enclosure of private property") IN their example - Europe as public good (whereas they should have analized the commons) - they express a very hierarchical and exlusive notion of the State where not even NGOs are welcome (they call it: "NGOization", but the State should be the only decision maker etc, etc. Let me add a quote: "essentially the commons debate is usefull in one aspect: to put a price on free goods in order to reduce their consumption". The constantly mix up everything. It is actually not worth to invest more time on this, as Stefan said, not at an international level, but we have to respond publicly in German to this article, at least I intend to write a blogpost about, because the journal where this article is confronted to an essay I wrote together with Felix Stein is actually read be decision makers. And it is a great opportunity to react. The author is the chief-editor of a german business oriented newspaper (Wirtschaftswoche). I was ask to propose sbd from the conservative side to write this essay, but I just don't know anybody with a coherent analisis. Therefore I was very keen to see whom they choosed and with which results. Well, the results are disappointing. All the best Silke IOn Sun, 2011-07-24 at 16:35 +0200, Brigitte Kratzwald wrote:
I absolutely agree with stefan, no more points to add!
regards brigitte
Am Sonntag, den 24.07.2011, 11:20 +0200 schrieb Stefan Meretz:
Dear Michel,
just flew over the article, and find completely not interesting enough to invest more time. The authors simply didn't get the point, or, I guess, they intentionally miss it. Very brief the content: - commons discourse is backward oriented - throws away 200 years of scientific knowledge - argues only morally - expresses discomfort with technology and modernity - there is no contradiction between common and private good - it is rather a continuum, because private property is limited too - commons = common property = public good - Hardin was right, the tragedy of the commons "is an historical fact" - only private property can limit total waste of environment - sucessful example: CO2 certificates (and trade with them) - the second part of the article is about "europe as a common good" (where common good = public good = state governed good)
Found no serious counter argument. Conservatives do not require to be serious, they simply play with prejudices.
Maybe Silke or Brigitte are more gracious with their judgement...
Ciao, Stefan
PS: Please change my address to [email protected] in your address list.
On 2011-07-20 04:40, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Dear Stefan,
I was told this was a conservative counter-argument against the commons in Germany,
would it be possible to tell us the gist of it in english? eventually for publication?
see http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/OMIL3U,0,Vom_eigenen_Garten_zur_weltw eiten_Ressourcenverteilung_Essay.html
hi silke, when you write that blogpost, let me know!! On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Silke Helfrich <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi all,
I agree as well, 100%, but I have two points to add:
It looks like they don't know what they want: on one hand they damn the state (as an alternative to the market) on the other hand they praise it, (f.i.: nobody needs the commons because there are limits to private property everywhere, btw - that's what they call the "enclosure of private property") IN their example - Europe as public good (whereas they should have analized the commons) - they express a very hierarchical and exlusive notion of the State where not even NGOs are welcome (they call it: "NGOization", but the State should be the only decision maker etc, etc.
Let me add a quote: "essentially the commons debate is usefull in one aspect: to put a price on free goods in order to reduce their consumption". The constantly mix up everything.
It is actually not worth to invest more time on this, as Stefan said, not at an international level, but we have to respond publicly in German to this article, at least I intend to write a blogpost about, because the journal where this article is confronted to an essay I wrote together with Felix Stein is actually read be decision makers. And it is a great opportunity to react. The author is the chief-editor of a german business oriented newspaper (Wirtschaftswoche). I was ask to propose sbd from the conservative side to write this essay, but I just don't know anybody with a coherent analisis. Therefore I was very keen to see whom they choosed and with which results. Well, the results are disappointing.
All the best Silke
IOn Sun, 2011-07-24 at 16:35 +0200, Brigitte Kratzwald wrote:
I absolutely agree with stefan, no more points to add!
regards brigitte
Am Sonntag, den 24.07.2011, 11:20 +0200 schrieb Stefan Meretz:
Dear Michel,
just flew over the article, and find completely not interesting enough to invest more time. The authors simply didn't get the point, or, I guess, they intentionally miss it. Very brief the content: - commons discourse is backward oriented - throws away 200 years of scientific knowledge - argues only morally - expresses discomfort with technology and modernity - there is no contradiction between common and private good - it is rather a continuum, because private property is limited too - commons = common property = public good - Hardin was right, the tragedy of the commons "is an historical fact" - only private property can limit total waste of environment - sucessful example: CO2 certificates (and trade with them) - the second part of the article is about "europe as a common good" (where common good = public good = state governed good)
Found no serious counter argument. Conservatives do not require to be serious, they simply play with prejudices.
Maybe Silke or Brigitte are more gracious with their judgement...
Ciao, Stefan
PS: Please change my address to [email protected] in your address list.
On 2011-07-20 04:40, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Dear Stefan,
I was told this was a conservative counter-argument against the commons in Germany,
would it be possible to tell us the gist of it in english? eventually for publication?
see
http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/OMIL3U,0,Vom_eigenen_Garten_zur_weltw
eiten_Ressourcenverteilung_Essay.html
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
participants (5)
-
Brigitte Kratzwald -
Michel Bauwens -
Michel Bauwens -
Silke Helfrich -
Stefan Meretz