Popular Ownership of the Commons
Direct democratic ownership and management of natural resources
John Champagne
Population increases and continual expansion of the many ways that human
beings impact this planet are causing depletion of resources that support
human civilization and destruction of ecosystems that make up the diverse
communities of life on earth. We cannot continue on our present path. We
must find ways to counteract the economic forces that drive people to tax
natural systems beyond their carrying capacity.
When a living system made up of many interacting, interdependent parts
experiences unsustainable stress, that stress is perceived and an adaptive
response is produced that tends to reduce the stress and preserve the health
of the organism. An overheated animal will sweat, pant or seek shade, and
its body temperature will fall. A system that responds to a stressful
stimuli in a way that reduces the stress constitutes a system of negative
feedback. Rising temperature causes a change in a physiological process or
behavior that then causes a decrease in the stress. The earth, as a complex
system made up of many interacting, interdependent parts, resembles an
organism in many ways, but it lacks a system of negative feedback that would
cause an adjustment in the system when human economic activity starts to
exert unsustainable pressures on the larger ecosystem.
Attaching appropriate fees to the taking of resources and putting of
pollution would bring information about ecological impacts into the economy
and it would keep economic activity within sustainable limits. A monetary
representation of ecological pressures and degradation, an 'ecological
impact price', would be factored into the price of goods and services in the
marketplace. People would have incentive to change buying habits that are
harmful to the environment because they would feel the ecological impact in
their pocketbook. Resource user-fees and pollution fees would correct the
defect that causes our economy to injure or deplete the larger systems of
which it is part.
No one person or small group of people knows for certain what level of human
impacts the earth can sustain. The question is a highly subjective one which
implies qualifiers such as, "At what level of risk, to present and future
generations?", and "Do we want to slow and stop present trends of
degradation, or do we want to go further and reverse these trends and
actively work to expand the portion of the earths surface covered by
forests, other diverse ecosystems, etc.?" "Do we want to bring carbon
dioxide emissions back to 1990 levels, or do we want to institute a policy
of 'No net increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere?'"
These are questions of long-lasting import. The answers we give will affect
ourselves in the short and long term. They will affect our offspring and
generations not yet born.
Management of natural resources through a fee on release of pollution and
taking of resources would produce a monetary representation of the value of
the earths air and water, biota and minerals. As these resources can be
thought of as public property, as belonging to all, we can rightly share the
proceeds of the pollution fees and resource fees among all people equally.
Such a sharing of the wealth of the commons would secure each and every one
of us against the threat of abject poverty.
A system that combines equal
ownership of the commons with free markets and private ownership of man-made
capital would include essential elements of both capitalism and communism.
The magnitude of the challenge we face, the stakes involved, and our
democratic principles all point to the need to secure the participation of
the largest portion of our society in deciding what human impacts on earth
we will allow. We cannot and should not expect that levels of resource
extraction or pollution will be much in excess of what most people would
consider as acceptable. Neither should we expect to hold emissions or taking
of resources to levels below what the people will accept. A democratic
society would set limits on environmental impacts such that about half
considered the levels about right or somewhat too strict while the other
half considered the limits about right or somewhat too lenient. If some of
us believe that we know better than most what human impacts should be judged
sustainable and acceptable, we will have the instruments of change in a free
society to bring our fellow citizens around to our view: Reason and
sustained pressure, education and the free flow of information.
This new paradigm built on the principle of democratic ownership and
management of natural resources will have as its most basic political act
the citizen expressing a preference about what kind of world we should make,
what human impacts on the environment we ought to allow. But this act, this
expression, must be in a form that users of natural resources can read so
that it can inform their actions. We will need to develop easy to create,
easy to read documents that we can use as our palate for painting a picture
of the kind of world we want to live in. This is a question that any
democratic society asks its citizens, implicitly or explicitly: What kind of
society do we want to create?
How can we translate the expressed will of the people into industry action
and permit prices without a central authority interpreting what the people
said and decreeing what the permit price will be? Can we create a
decentralized system that reflects the character of the new tools that make
this direct democracy possible?
One possibility: Let each polluter survey a random sample of the people to
determine what is acceptable behavior overall. They can then declare how
many permits they expect to buy and what price they expect to pay, and
survey others' projected demands and prices. Businesses would be guessing
what the permit price should be given the observed mix of supply and demand.
This is an inexact science. When all business on average estimates a too-low
fee for use of natural resources or putting pollution, the low estimate will
result in levels of projected use or pollution that exceed what the people
say is permissible. More iterations of public statements of projected
prices, estimated demand, and surveys of other buyers estimates, informed by
the results of the previous iteration, would bring the community of
resource-users closer to the ideal market-clearing price.
In the past, the supply of natural resources exceeded any demands that
humans placed on them. There was no need for markets to manage the demands
placed on the commons. Natural resources were treated as a free good, with
good reason. The abundant supply meant that there were no shortages. People
could take what they wanted when they wanted because the supply always
exceeded the demand. (Well, this is true more or less: Since the advent of
civilization, various populations at various times have increased their
numbers and degraded their resource base to the point that their
civilization collapsed.) But conditions have changed. Now, population
pressures and resource depletion are felt simultaneously across a global
civilization.
Whatever level of human impacts on the environment we decide to allow, we
will gain the greatest benefit from limited resources if we allow the free
market to manage their allocation. Free markets are the most efficient means
of allocating resources because, at a given cost of production, they
accurately balance supply and demand. In the case where the supply of
natural resources is set by vote of the people, we should say the free
market offers the most efficient and fair means of reconciling an elastic
demand to a limited supply, through a public auction. The resources will go
to those for whom they have the greatest value or utility.
One potential problem with a popular vote on acceptable levels of pollution
and use of resources is that some people may want to vote very far beyond
what they would honestly consider as acceptable, as a ploy to skew the
average in their direction, knowing full well that their vote is but one
among many, and voting an extreme position would move the average farther in
their preferred direction than a vote that reflected their true, more
moderate position. How could we address this problem?
One possibility: We could agree that most of our votes for next year's
environmental impacts will be within, say, ten percent of this year's
levels, with perhaps only 10% of the total natural resource wealth of the
planet being subject to a yearly change of as much as 25%. Each citizen
would then be forced to consider carefully which human impacts were most
harmful and deserving of extraordinary efforts at control. But would the
fraction of total resource wealth subject to more abrupt adjustment be
measured in dollar terms? How can we compare CO2 impacts with asphalt or
coral reef destruction, other than in economic terms, e.g.: as a fraction of
the overall economy? Another strategy for discouraging the practice of
voting an extreme position in order to skew the average would be to decrease
the weight of votes that fall far from the mean. We might apply a formula to
votes, W = 1/(1+sd), so that a vote that fell four standard deviations from
the mean would have only one-fifth the weight of a vote at the mean. All
votes would be counted, but some would be given less weight, according to
how much most people, by their votes, indicated the more extreme votes were
simply not responsible. Voters away from the mean could include comments
with their votes, in an attempt to educate others as to the reasons behind
their less conventional views. These comments, if well presented and backed
with credible evidence, could be the basis of a change of opinion of a
larger segment of the population.
This system will mean that capital investments will only turn a profit to
the extent that they successfully meet human needs at the lowest cost to the
environment--in terms of resources used and pollution put out. Everyone who
has any money to invest will see that the place to put it is into clean
industries and enterprises. The economic situation changes to one that has
money flowing toward people engaged in cleaner industry rather than
primarily toward those who control capital engaged in the most advantageous
exploitation of a free ride on the commons.
Polluters are now subsidized by
everyone: we all, most especially the poor, must pay the price of dirtier
air and water and soil: more disease, lower quality of life. Appropriate
fees on use of natural resources and on adverse impacts on the community,
with proceeds shared among all equally, would end this injustice.
Industry, investors, will only make money to the extent that they can
conduct themselves in ways that are not offensive to workers, since people
who receive their equal share of the earths natural resource wealth would be
more free to seek better working conditions, more rewarding work, if they
find themselves in an unappealing situation. They would not be paralyzed by
the prospect of abject poverty if they find themselves temporarily without
work. And is this not exactly what we want? Psychological rewards of
work--meaning and purpose--would become more prominent as an issue of
concern. Ecological sustainability would become an integral component of the
corporate bottom line. Employers and employees both would be more free to
follow their bliss.
Human beings come in many personality and character types. Some people are
more inclined by their nature to say, "We will do it this way because it is
best for the community... and we make more money". Others will be more
inclined to say, "We will do it this way because we make more money this
way... and it is better for the community". Our current system tends to
exclude from business participation and success those who would be more
inclined to the first type. And it forces those who are of the second type
to say, "We will do it this way because we make more money, even though it
is not really the best thing for the community or environment". When we
shift our paradigm to internalize externalities into the price of products,
every economic decision accurately reflects the whole mix of costs and
benefits of an action. By pursuing profit or low prices, we will be
following the path that is best for ourselves and the larger community.
Many people believe that the only reason for government to exist is to
protect the individual and community against those (individuals and groups)
who would violate the rights and interests of others. A government dedicated
to take action against those who initiate the use of force, and committed to
never initiate the use of force itself, is the best guarantee of individual
and minority rights. If putting out pollution and taking more than your
share of natural resources is recognized as forcing others to live with your
pollution and live without, with less of, what you are taking, then this
principle of no first use of force by government provides the legal/moral
basis for a paradigm of democratic ownership and control of the commons,
with users of commons resources compensating the people in proportion to the
magnitude of use or degradation. This paradigm is an integration of
libertarian and green politics. We may need further shifts in our perception
of the boundaries between what we consider public and private acts before
many people who call themselves libertarian will embrace this paradigm
wholeheartedly. Consider: is it a public act or a private act to do things
on your own land that tend to destroy wildlife habitat and diminish
biodiversity? Is preservation of biodiversity an issue of public concern?
With significant green fees, conventional taxes may be difficult to support
financially. They may also be seen as lacking any philosophical foundation.
We may see a system requiring payment to the people in return for the
privilege of taking publicly owned resources for profit as fair and just,
while the requirement that we make payment to the government in proportion
to how much income we earn or goods and services we sell may not seem on the
face to be eminently fair. Fees on things that we do that are detrimental to
the community can be thought of as an alternative to conventional taxes,
rather than as an addition to them.
We could determine that a portion of the proceeds of the fees on use of the
commons will be public funds, dedicated to the support of public and
community programs. With each person receiving a substantial stipend as
their share of earths natural resource wealth, many of the functions of
government that are intended to aid the poor and otherwise distribute income
would be unnecessary. For those government programs that continue to be seen
as necessary or desirable, citizens could each decide what programs are most
deserving of support. We could vote on priorities for spending our share of
public funds in the same way that we vote on priorities for moderating
ecological impacts.
The people would set the agenda. Money would flow toward those who work
toward some aspect of the agenda that is set by the community. Money would
flow away from those who are working counter to some aspect of the agenda
set by the community. If the people say they want less CO2; less asphalt;
less light pollution interfering with our view of the stars, then the people
whose decisions run counter to these community-agreed goals will be made to
pay a fee. When the levels of the fees are such that the economic 'bads' are
sufficiently reduced, the people will stop saying they want to see less of
these things and they will turn their attention to other things. What we
call externalities today would become internalized into the economic
calculus. Actions which produce negative impacts will be performed only in
so far as their benefits outweigh those costs.
Many people will not feel qualified to make taxing and spending decisions,
at least on some issues. They may choose to delegate their vote to other,
more qualified persons. We could have a direct / representative democracy
with the option of calling back our proxy if ever we feel it is being used
in an irresponsible way. This need not be a formal arrangement. If our votes
on how to manage community resources and how to spend public funds are
public statements, then we could examine others' votes to find people with
whom we agree. We could copy their votes if we are convinced that they are
well-informed and responsible. Some people may gain a reputation of being
more informed than others. Those entrusted with the responsibility to
decide, on behalf of thousands or millions, appropriate levels of emissions
and resource extraction would likely enter into that position by virtue of a
reputation among many that they do quality work and are people of integrity.
Because there may be some social prestige and status, (perhaps even a small
stipend from the public funds), for holding such a position, there would
likely be some incentive for a person to maintain this reputation, so as to
preserve this favored status position. The persons or organizations
entrusted with this responsibility for assessment would have every incentive
to make their work widely available, both the data-gathering and the
analysis, to possibly further increase their constituency. This could only
help to improve the quality and relevance of information and materials
available to schools, libraries and the public at large.
This paradigm gives each of us an equal voice in sculpting our society. When
we ask questions about the quality of environment that we want to create,
and translate the answers into reality, we change our understanding of the
role of the citizen in society. We change our consciousness about our
responsibility and our power. We are invited to consider carefully what we
mean by progress and a good life.
A system of fees for use of resources, with control of overall levels of use
vested in the people at large, would provide the feedback mechanisms that
would cause economic activities to adjust to the ecological conditions that
sustain them. Control of the proceeds of these fees vested in all people
equally would go a long way toward redressing problems of disparity of
wealth, and it ensures that the proceeds would be invested in ways
consistent with the interests of the people at large.
This article appeared earlier at the
Progress Report
web site.
