It's mutual coercion because we collectively agree on the rules that everyone plays by. The problem with private property owners seeking damages is that it becomes increasingly costly and difficult to prove and collect. That's where the state steps in to protect citizens against big business. If an electable government is subject to corruption, then it is the interest of business to be corrupt. Classical economic theory suggests that businesses should try to maximize profit for its shareholders, so it is antithetical to the very definition of business to expect them to be wise and altruistic in nature.
With regards to your comment about private property, the problem is that resources aren't static. You might, for example, own a piece of beach front property, but the trash you deposit there affects not just your local area. Waste upriver affects everyone downriver. Waste in oceans cause nutrient pollution and exacerbate algae blooms, which kill fish and harbor bacteria dangerous to human health. Oil can be siphoned from one area and will draw all the oil from neighboring land. The liquid used for fracking flows into the water table and pollutes it, or into fault lines and cause earth quakes. Air particulates sent through smoke stacks don't just remain confined around your property, but causes air quality problems over a wide area.
This isn't a problem solved by privatizing land, unless you want to drastically change what land ownership entails. Hardin does conclude that regulation (i.e. mutual coercion) is the solution. He does not advocate privatization for obvious reasons.
All Comments (2) Comments
This isn't a problem solved by privatizing land, unless you want to drastically change what land ownership entails. Hardin does conclude that regulation (i.e. mutual coercion) is the solution. He does not advocate privatization for obvious reasons.