Hello, and welcome to another episode it could happen here. I'm your guest host of this episode where I'm hoping to take a moment to discuss the commons, the principles of successful commons management, and why sitting attempts to establish the comments of field. My name, by the way, is Andrew of the YouTube channel Andrewism. You can follow me on YouTube dot com slash Andrewism. I'm joined here with my two cool hosts that will be Garrison Davis Hello, and James Stout. Hi. Awesome. But before I get into exactly what makes the commons work, I least want to discuss what exactly the comments are, because despite being you know, common throughout human history, a lot of people can't imagine how they might have worked what they are. Of course, the commons is a very specific definition of particular context of you know, feudalism and whatnot. But even outside of that, the idea of the commons is essentially the resources accessible to all members of society, the totality of the material riches of that community or even of the world, regarded as their whole inheritance, rather than being subject to inclosure and to privatization. Even today, despite the process of inclosure, which is with you of its own podcast episode or series of podcast episodes or book. Even even today, they are still you know, viable existing commons institutions, and they've in some cases endured for well over how and years. Most famously Helena Ostrom, the economists who explored the concept in depth and de punct the tragedy of the Commons, wrote in her book Governing the Commons that from you know, the alpine meadows of Torbell, Switzerland, to the three million hectares of Japanese for us, to the irrigation systems of Spain and Philippines, the possibility of community of popular rather than public or state or private or corporate ownership exists. The possibility of communal ownership as opposed to capitalist or state ownership exists. There's also the communal land of Chiapas in Mexico after the successful Zapatista revolution, and of course, as I discussed in previous episode, there are the commons of Barbuda, where the entire island of the twin island nation of Antigue and Barbuda is owned collectively by all Barbudas and regarded as their collective heritage. These projects. Of course, an art static the commons and Brobuda, for example, existed for about a hundred years, but had some precedents prior to that, and are now honestly being encroached upon. After the soul shock doctrine of the hurricanes that ravaged the island has opened up an opportunity for Antique Brobbuda's government sort of swooping and privatized the land um for the benefit of foreign companies and foreign resorts. So the Commons is not this timeless internal institution that can't be interrupted, that's never change um to in the case in cheap Us, you know, they had similar projects, similar institutions prior to colonization. Colonization ruled in and interrupted all that, and thanks to the Zapleas Revolution they were able to institute some semblance of that sort of commons institution, of that communal land um for their collective benefits. They responwned to experience conditions, to circumstances, to serve or in some cases to eventually not to the people. But of course not all commons are able to work, not all commons institutions operate effectively, and she talks about why using various case studies to illustrate her points. In the course of governing the commons, she used, of course, the existence case studies to develop cuitain principles that she believed make the commons work, the principles that she found in common between Switzerland and Japan, the Philippines and Spain, and then use those principles to examine the common its institutions that didn't work, identified which principles were missing from the equation. But I'm talking a lot about what these principles about, these principles of successful commons management, and I haven't broken down what they are exactly. So to get into that, the principles of successful commons management, as followers number one, clearly defined boundaries. Boundaries in the sense of having of those involved, the appropriators of the commons, the people who directly access in the commons, having a clear sense of structure and characteristics of the resource system itself, whether it be through a scientific study or through generationally preserved folk knowledge, as well as knowledge and a clear sense of who is involved and withdrawn from and sustaining it. Even if you know, even in the case where the entire world has been common, where all land has been returned to common land to the ownership of none and everyone simultaneously in such a case. In individual instances of common pool resources, whether it be a forest or a fishery, or a lake or groundwater basin, the people most directly access in those that that segment of the Commons, that system, that common pool resource needs to have a clear sense of exactly what that resource entails UM, the limits of that resource, the renewability of that resource, UM, and who is involved in withdrawing from and sustaining that resource, so that they're able to collaborate. If you know, as in the case with the tragedy of the Commons, everybody is just this isolated actor, not communicate and at all not collaborating. There's no collective institution in place to help them, you know, work it out. You basically gonna end up in a case like the targity of the Commons, where the system is depleted because nobody has a sense of what anybody else is doing. UM, there's no there's no open channel of communication, which brings us, of course to collective decision making power. That's the third principle. So I'm jumping ahead slightly, but it flows better this way um having collective decision making power over the commons, meaning there's an institution in place that those who are drawing from the Commons are able to come together and discuss the rules of the Commons. How are they going to draw from the Commons, how are they going to deal with the Commons, how they're gonna deal with each other as they deal with the Commons, and so on. And to afford the idea of rules is not anti anarchists as a concept, um, just the idea that there is not you know, popular inputs and collective inputs and free association in place UM. And so with consensus, with this institution of collective decision making power, people be able to come up with and modify the rules as it suits their situations, as it's as it suits their shifting circumstances um. And of course, and this is the second principle, that their appropriation and provision rules of the Commons are compatible with local conditions. The whole ideas that do not relying on any external authorities to come up with these rules, to commit to these rules, to bind themselves to these rules, even when the temptations to violate those rules apply. So as a practice of you know, developing community, you need to have some sense of shared norms and developing those shared norms over time regard and behavior, and of course, as in the case in almost of all societies, of course, reputation and one's reputation will play a rule. Um, if you are known to be consistently violating the commons rules, of course they're going to be social consequences to that. That's just a natural consequence. Just because the commons exist doesn't mean that people are free of the consequences of how they use those comments. Just like in the case of the environment. You know, just because you can cut down all the trees in the forest doesn't mean you're free of the consequences from cutting on the trees of that forest. Your actions are still going to have consequences, whether it be environmental or social. There are of course limits, as there as there are in any other aspect of life. But of course simple norms regarding behavior or concerns about reputation may help. But you're also going to need the fourth and fifth principles established in some form effectively maintain social harmony. The fourth principle is of course, monitoring, which is the process of continuously evaluating the conditions of the common pool resource itself as well as the behavior of the appropriators. Now to monitoring. It's kind of spooky, right. It sounds a little bit like Big brothers watching you kind of fight. But that's not really the intention. It's just the idea that it's just this this constant, informal process of looking at and observing and collecting data on the conditions of the commons, the conditions including how people behave with the commons as well as the you know, commons themselves, the resources themselves, how much of them we have, how quickly they're being you know, renewed, that sort of thing. And and through that process of each person, each appropriator of the commons, institutions um monitoring the system continuously, you begin to learn what rules work and what rules don't, and so you can adapt your rules to suit the circumstances, to suit how people actually behave, which is something that centralized and hierarchical institutions have a bit of trouble doing. Because when you have this horizontal common institution, you're able to look at, okay, this is how things are going so far, and let me we can we can now talk about it we're constantly in this dialogue. We're all able to contribute our information in this horizontal system and adapt our rules and our behavior to suit. Whereas in the pyramid structure of a hierarchical and centralized organization, but further up the pyramid ecal yes, the more power there is as centralized institutions tend to have, but also less information because the narrowing of the pyramid leads to less and less information from the bottom filtering up to the top. And so when you have these centralized institutions, rules are a lot more rigid because they're not able to respond quickly and effectively and as informed as informedly um to the situations as they arise. That's also why eight of the planet's bio diversity is being protected by a very small percentage of indigenous people because they are on the ground. Because they are they're interact with the systems in real time, they're able to respond directly and quickly to changes in that part ability two changes in behavioral in order to maintain and sustain that system. Whereas you find that a lot of conservation projects, a lot of restoration projects, in environmental frustoration projects are feeling you know, I recently read an article about how a lot of these tree planting initiatives that governments have been doing these days, while you know, it gets them good, publicity gets them good, you know, social, social, political, international clouds. When you go back one year, two years, three years down the line, almost all, if not all, the trees are dead. The communities living by these reforestation projects, we're not involved in the process. They don't have any say in the selection of the trees. In fact, the trees aren't always even choosen in a coote into the local conditions. They often isn't enough biodie flicity in terms of the trees. I mean when it comes to a forest, and that's what people don't understand. Forests are living organism. You know, it's it has multiple layers, has multiple past. You can just PLoP us at the trees down and expect things to work out. Okay, you know, um James C. Scott talks about this in Seeing like a state. You can't just in these states they start these sort of forestry projects. They try to legible, legibilize, you know, these forests, these simple rules and organizations, and you cut out all the fluff, all the shrubbery, all the other plans that are competing Coote and coote, you end up with a dead system, you know, they put the system that is very fragile, is not able to respond to changes in the environments they rise because it does not have the buffer as of a complex web of life in place. Indigenous groups and really anybody who is grounded in the local context is able to most effectively engage and respond because they have access to that information, because they're able to see the shocks to the system, the buffers, what works, what doesn't. Human culturists are able to, you know, to have these intensive systems because they are constantly monitoring coming full circle here, constantly monitoring the feedback that they're getting from their systems. And of course there's a fifth principle. You know, in these sort of situations, you're still going to have a couple opportunistic people, maybe attempt may be tempted to take advantage of the trust presence in the group um. And when I say opportunistic people, I don't mean to create this other, this old group. I just mean us in the sense of, you know, you have, like we all do, moments of weakness, right, and then those moments of weakness, it can be easy for some to falter, and in that falter and jeopardize the security of the system as a whole, and so the fifth Prince will successful. Common spanagement is the practice of accountability and systems of accountability through graduated sanctions. Of course, empathy needs to maintain throughout the process. And I don't think that every infraction must automatically responded to with sanctions. Like again, I'm not trying to do something, it's just obviously when you have a system that has and I know I'm reference to nine like a right finger, but yeah, yeah, I think it's fine reference nine correctly as opposed to like someone who hasn't read it or read anything else that he wrote. Yeah, yeah, we can take it. But you know, obviously, not every situation gonna respond to its sanctions. Obviously, empathation remunitae throughout the process. Um, But when you have a system in which a lot of people are dependent on the sustainability not just people living right now, but generations to come, and that's not something we accustomed to thinking about, but generations still coming out and think about with these sort of commons institutions, you can't do as the capitalists do and just let people do whatever with minimal if any environmental protections with minimal if any like standards in place. Yes, infractions varying severity and stuff, But when the livelihood of the entire community is that state, you know, things can be so easy. When infractions are just you know, temporary deviations or unthreatening to the overall survival of the CPR, then you know, tolerance can be high. But it depends on the circumstance. And that's why it really is important that the prior four principles or in place. You know, you have the clearly defined boundaries, you have the rules of the commons established by collective decision making power over the commons, with a constant process of monitoring in place. Because again, the responsiveness of the people on the ground is a lot more in tune with the conditions of the commons and with the needs of the people themselves, because they are the people. And the fifth principle and the fourth principle, all the other principles would be nothing without the sixth principle, which is the presence of conflict resolution mechanism. Humans are kind of human, you know, we make mistakes. We have disagreements, and it needs to be some sort of means of discussing and resolving conflict in a healthy and effective way. There are a lot of processes in place UM. A lot of communities, Galterian communities throughout history have used some sort of system of mediation. UM. There's also arbitration, which chance be more common in state societies. And they are also new models and methods of justice being established and drawn from from the past as well that we can look into. But they are conflict resolution mechanisms. They have to be in place the successful comments management. We live in a society, and society includes conflict. Conflict is not always necessarily a bad thing, but it's a thing and you ignore it and expected to go away. The seventh principle is the freedom to organize, and this principle is, you know, the basis upon which the other principles arrest. In some places, people have a lot of autonomy to self organize free of state control. In other places they don't. In other places, there's a lot of state encroachment on the commons because that has been the mission of the state to further their ten drils. In every sphere of life and existence. So obviously the end goal, but one of the end goals the complete abolition of the state, and obviously the process upon which we reached those end goals would require pre figurative politics in the sense of establishing the institutions that we want in the future society in the here and now and building that dual poll capacity to provide a competitive excuse the capitalists terminology, but a competitive model that can you know, compete with, rise from and separately from eventually replace um the existing systems, and that's the process of social revolution. Have a video coming up on that in December. Lastly, and this does not apply to every instance of commons management, but in some cases you need the eighth and finale principle for successful commons management, and that is nested enterprises, which is, you know, basically the same principle as an anarchist confederation. You know, if a particular community is access in a commons institution that other communities are access in, or if the commons that a group of communities are access in a part of a larger regional commons or archipelogic commons or continental commons, then he wants to have means of collaboration partom up of course, part of organizations, but you know, maintain the power the local level while coordinating these larger scaled commons and ensuring that there's a smooth running and smooth communication between the appropriators, you know, the people involved. These principles very clearly differentiate between success and the failure cases. To reiterate the commons and the principle of successful commons management as follows, clearly defined boundaries, rules compatible with local conditions, collective decision making power to establish those rules, monitoring to ensure that those rules are compatible with people and conditions. Graduated sanctions to ensure that rules are kept up with and the commons are protected from potential threats, conflict resolution mechanisms because humans are going to human freedom to organize, particularly in the fragilely stages of establishing these projects and nested enterprises confederation from the bottom up. In certain failure cases, we see that, you know, none of the principles apply um. For example, in the book eleanor Austrom references these two Turkish fisheries, the bay of his Mirror and boardroom, where there was severe rent dissipation continuing unabated. Of course, the book was written a while ago, so I'm not sure how the situation has evolved since then. But rent dissipation is basically a circumstance in which the commons cornpool resources are being depleted severely and the sustainability of those comments are at stake. And so with all those principles in place, to all that doesn't happened. Um you get a situation like what's going on? But what was going on in the Bay of His Mirror and put in the Kirin the oil irrigation project in Sri Lanka, they did have clayer boundaries, that one principle in place, but the other principles were not. In Mojave, California, they did have the institution of collective choice, they did have contact resolution mechanisms, and they did have the recognized right to organize, but the other principles are not in place, and so that institution was also a failure. Or we could look at the case in the Mabella fishery also in Sri Lanka, where renticipation had become a very severe problem, particularly after nine Now, they did have rules in place, they did have a monitoring system, but unfortunately, you know, despite having those rules, is probably having you know, regulating regulating the access to the beach and the use of the beach scenes and the control of the number of nets to be used. I mean, they really did try. It wasn't a problem of ignorance the issuers that although they were aware of the consequences of adding too many nets and drawing too much from the fishery, the issue became that the appropriators, the fishermen themselves, they don't have the autonomy to make an enforce the rules of the fishery that was deprived of them, and so the institution was not able to sustain itself in the long term. So in all these cases, you know, no more of the three design principles actually characterized any of these cases, and so they were unable to solve the problems that they faced. They're of course also issues where they are viable but fragile common system where you know, they have more of the principles in place, but they still lack all of them. So awesome Sri Lanka. There's a gal oil where boundaries and membership would clay designated, where rules have been devised and monitored, where collective choice arenas have been set up, but they you know did not have the autonomy and they do not have collect conflict resolution mechanisms in place, and so the institution is not as as robust as it could be. Of course, when it comes to the Commons and existing institutions, existing fragile institutions exist in successful institutions, existing failures of institutions. That does not necessarily need to limit all imagination of possibilities, but it's good to be informed as to what has worked in the past and what hasn't. We can still imagine future scenarios and experiments and how they might play out. But the point is if we're trying to reinstate the Commons, we need to understand what makes them work, at least what has made them work in the past and in the present. More information of the Commons and also the potential of library economy, you can check out my videos on the Commons and the library economy on my channel YouTube dot com slash Andurism. You can also check out Eleanor Ostrom's book Governing the Commons, as well as a book called Eleanor Ostrom's Rules for Radicals, which I haven't read yet, but I felt it was pretty good. If you like what I do. You'd like to support me, you could follow me on pitture dot com slash same true and on Twitter com slash underscore same true. That's all I have for today. It could Happen here piece. It could Happen Here as a production of cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from Zone Media, visit our website cool zone media dot com, or check us out on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone media dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening,

Hello, and welcome to another episode it could happen here. I'm your guest host of this episode where I'm hoping to take a moment to discuss the commons, the principles of successful commons management, and why sitting attempts to establish the comments of field. My name, by the way, is Andrew of the YouTube channel Andrewism. You can follow me on YouTube dot com slash Andrewism. I'm joined here with my two cool hosts that will be Garrison Davis Hello, and James Stout. Hi. Awesome. But before I get into exactly what makes the commons work, I least want to discuss what exactly the comments are, because despite being you know, common throughout human history, a lot of people can't imagine how they might have worked what they are. Of course, the commons is a very specific definition of particular context of you know, feudalism and whatnot. But even outside of that, the idea of the commons is essentially the resources accessible to all members of society, the totality of the material riches of that community or even of the world, regarded as their whole inheritance, rather than being subject to inclosure and to privatization. Even today, despite the process of inclosure, which is with you of its own podcast episode or series of podcast episodes or book. Even even today, they are still you know, viable existing commons institutions, and they've in some cases endured for well over how and years. Most famously Helena Ostrom, the economists who explored the concept in depth and de punct the tragedy of the Commons, wrote in her book Governing the Commons that from you know, the alpine meadows of Torbell, Switzerland, to the three million hectares of Japanese for us, to the irrigation systems of Spain and Philippines, the possibility of community of popular rather than public or state or private or corporate ownership exists. The possibility of communal ownership as opposed to capitalist or state ownership exists. There's also the communal land of Chiapas in Mexico after the successful Zapatista revolution, and of course, as I discussed in previous episode, there are the commons of Barbuda, where the entire island of the twin island nation of Antigue and Barbuda is owned collectively by all Barbudas and regarded as their collective heritage. These projects. Of course, an art static the commons and Brobuda, for example, existed for about a hundred years, but had some precedents prior to that, and are now honestly being encroached upon. After the soul shock doctrine of the hurricanes that ravaged the island has opened up an opportunity for Antique Brobbuda's government sort of swooping and privatized the land um for the benefit of foreign companies and foreign resorts. So the Commons is not this timeless internal institution that can't be interrupted, that's never change um to in the case in cheap Us, you know, they had similar projects, similar institutions prior to colonization. Colonization ruled in and interrupted all that, and thanks to the Zapleas Revolution they were able to institute some semblance of that sort of commons institution, of that communal land um for their collective benefits. They responwned to experience conditions, to circumstances, to serve or in some cases to eventually not to the people. But of course not all commons are able to work, not all commons institutions operate effectively, and she talks about why using various case studies to illustrate her points. In the course of governing the commons, she used, of course, the existence case studies to develop cuitain principles that she believed make the commons work, the principles that she found in common between Switzerland and Japan, the Philippines and Spain, and then use those principles to examine the common its institutions that didn't work, identified which principles were missing from the equation. But I'm talking a lot about what these principles about, these principles of successful commons management, and I haven't broken down what they are exactly. So to get into that, the principles of successful commons management, as followers number one, clearly defined boundaries. Boundaries in the sense of having of those involved, the appropriators of the commons, the people who directly access in the commons, having a clear sense of structure and characteristics of the resource system itself, whether it be through a scientific study or through generationally preserved folk knowledge, as well as knowledge and a clear sense of who is involved and withdrawn from and sustaining it. Even if you know, even in the case where the entire world has been common, where all land has been returned to common land to the ownership of none and everyone simultaneously in such a case. In individual instances of common pool resources, whether it be a forest or a fishery, or a lake or groundwater basin, the people most directly access in those that that segment of the Commons, that system, that common pool resource needs to have a clear sense of exactly what that resource entails UM, the limits of that resource, the renewability of that resource, UM, and who is involved in withdrawing from and sustaining that resource, so that they're able to collaborate. If you know, as in the case with the tragedy of the Commons, everybody is just this isolated actor, not communicate and at all not collaborating. There's no collective institution in place to help them, you know, work it out. You basically gonna end up in a case like the targity of the Commons, where the system is depleted because nobody has a sense of what anybody else is doing. UM, there's no there's no open channel of communication, which brings us, of course to collective decision making power. That's the third principle. So I'm jumping ahead slightly, but it flows better this way um having collective decision making power over the commons, meaning there's an institution in place that those who are drawing from the Commons are able to come together and discuss the rules of the Commons. How are they going to draw from the Commons, how are they going to deal with the Commons, how they're gonna deal with each other as they deal with the Commons, and so on. And to afford the idea of rules is not anti anarchists as a concept, um, just the idea that there is not you know, popular inputs and collective inputs and free association in place UM. And so with consensus, with this institution of collective decision making power, people be able to come up with and modify the rules as it suits their situations, as it's as it suits their shifting circumstances um. And of course, and this is the second principle, that their appropriation and provision rules of the Commons are compatible with local conditions. The whole ideas that do not relying on any external authorities to come up with these rules, to commit to these rules, to bind themselves to these rules, even when the temptations to violate those rules apply. So as a practice of you know, developing community, you need to have some sense of shared norms and developing those shared norms over time regard and behavior, and of course, as in the case in almost of all societies, of course, reputation and one's reputation will play a rule. Um, if you are known to be consistently violating the commons rules, of course they're going to be social consequences to that. That's just a natural consequence. Just because the commons exist doesn't mean that people are free of the consequences of how they use those comments. Just like in the case of the environment. You know, just because you can cut down all the trees in the forest doesn't mean you're free of the consequences from cutting on the trees of that forest. Your actions are still going to have consequences, whether it be environmental or social. There are of course limits, as there as there are in any other aspect of life. But of course simple norms regarding behavior or concerns about reputation may help. But you're also going to need the fourth and fifth principles established in some form effectively maintain social harmony. The fourth principle is of course, monitoring, which is the process of continuously evaluating the conditions of the common pool resource itself as well as the behavior of the appropriators. Now to monitoring. It's kind of spooky, right. It sounds a little bit like Big brothers watching you kind of fight. But that's not really the intention. It's just the idea that it's just this this constant, informal process of looking at and observing and collecting data on the conditions of the commons, the conditions including how people behave with the commons as well as the you know, commons themselves, the resources themselves, how much of them we have, how quickly they're being you know, renewed, that sort of thing. And and through that process of each person, each appropriator of the commons, institutions um monitoring the system continuously, you begin to learn what rules work and what rules don't, and so you can adapt your rules to suit the circumstances, to suit how people actually behave, which is something that centralized and hierarchical institutions have a bit of trouble doing. Because when you have this horizontal common institution, you're able to look at, okay, this is how things are going so far, and let me we can we can now talk about it we're constantly in this dialogue. We're all able to contribute our information in this horizontal system and adapt our rules and our behavior to suit. Whereas in the pyramid structure of a hierarchical and centralized organization, but further up the pyramid ecal yes, the more power there is as centralized institutions tend to have, but also less information because the narrowing of the pyramid leads to less and less information from the bottom filtering up to the top. And so when you have these centralized institutions, rules are a lot more rigid because they're not able to respond quickly and effectively and as informed as informedly um to the situations as they arise. That's also why eight of the planet's bio diversity is being protected by a very small percentage of indigenous people because they are on the ground. Because they are they're interact with the systems in real time, they're able to respond directly and quickly to changes in that part ability two changes in behavioral in order to maintain and sustain that system. Whereas you find that a lot of conservation projects, a lot of restoration projects, in environmental frustoration projects are feeling you know, I recently read an article about how a lot of these tree planting initiatives that governments have been doing these days, while you know, it gets them good, publicity gets them good, you know, social, social, political, international clouds. When you go back one year, two years, three years down the line, almost all, if not all, the trees are dead. The communities living by these reforestation projects, we're not involved in the process. They don't have any say in the selection of the trees. In fact, the trees aren't always even choosen in a coote into the local conditions. They often isn't enough biodie flicity in terms of the trees. I mean when it comes to a forest, and that's what people don't understand. Forests are living organism. You know, it's it has multiple layers, has multiple past. You can just PLoP us at the trees down and expect things to work out. Okay, you know, um James C. Scott talks about this in Seeing like a state. You can't just in these states they start these sort of forestry projects. They try to legible, legibilize, you know, these forests, these simple rules and organizations, and you cut out all the fluff, all the shrubbery, all the other plans that are competing Coote and coote, you end up with a dead system, you know, they put the system that is very fragile, is not able to respond to changes in the environments they rise because it does not have the buffer as of a complex web of life in place. Indigenous groups and really anybody who is grounded in the local context is able to most effectively engage and respond because they have access to that information, because they're able to see the shocks to the system, the buffers, what works, what doesn't. Human culturists are able to, you know, to have these intensive systems because they are constantly monitoring coming full circle here, constantly monitoring the feedback that they're getting from their systems. And of course there's a fifth principle. You know, in these sort of situations, you're still going to have a couple opportunistic people, maybe attempt may be tempted to take advantage of the trust presence in the group um. And when I say opportunistic people, I don't mean to create this other, this old group. I just mean us in the sense of, you know, you have, like we all do, moments of weakness, right, and then those moments of weakness, it can be easy for some to falter, and in that falter and jeopardize the security of the system as a whole, and so the fifth Prince will successful. Common spanagement is the practice of accountability and systems of accountability through graduated sanctions. Of course, empathy needs to maintain throughout the process. And I don't think that every infraction must automatically responded to with sanctions. Like again, I'm not trying to do something, it's just obviously when you have a system that has and I know I'm reference to nine like a right finger, but yeah, yeah, I think it's fine reference nine correctly as opposed to like someone who hasn't read it or read anything else that he wrote. Yeah, yeah, we can take it. But you know, obviously, not every situation gonna respond to its sanctions. Obviously, empathation remunitae throughout the process. Um, But when you have a system in which a lot of people are dependent on the sustainability not just people living right now, but generations to come, and that's not something we accustomed to thinking about, but generations still coming out and think about with these sort of commons institutions, you can't do as the capitalists do and just let people do whatever with minimal if any environmental protections with minimal if any like standards in place. Yes, infractions varying severity and stuff, But when the livelihood of the entire community is that state, you know, things can be so easy. When infractions are just you know, temporary deviations or unthreatening to the overall survival of the CPR, then you know, tolerance can be high. But it depends on the circumstance. And that's why it really is important that the prior four principles or in place. You know, you have the clearly defined boundaries, you have the rules of the commons established by collective decision making power over the commons, with a constant process of monitoring in place. Because again, the responsiveness of the people on the ground is a lot more in tune with the conditions of the commons and with the needs of the people themselves, because they are the people. And the fifth principle and the fourth principle, all the other principles would be nothing without the sixth principle, which is the presence of conflict resolution mechanism. Humans are kind of human, you know, we make mistakes. We have disagreements, and it needs to be some sort of means of discussing and resolving conflict in a healthy and effective way. There are a lot of processes in place UM. A lot of communities, Galterian communities throughout history have used some sort of system of mediation. UM. There's also arbitration, which chance be more common in state societies. And they are also new models and methods of justice being established and drawn from from the past as well that we can look into. But they are conflict resolution mechanisms. They have to be in place the successful comments management. We live in a society, and society includes conflict. Conflict is not always necessarily a bad thing, but it's a thing and you ignore it and expected to go away. The seventh principle is the freedom to organize, and this principle is, you know, the basis upon which the other principles arrest. In some places, people have a lot of autonomy to self organize free of state control. In other places they don't. In other places, there's a lot of state encroachment on the commons because that has been the mission of the state to further their ten drils. In every sphere of life and existence. So obviously the end goal, but one of the end goals the complete abolition of the state, and obviously the process upon which we reached those end goals would require pre figurative politics in the sense of establishing the institutions that we want in the future society in the here and now and building that dual poll capacity to provide a competitive excuse the capitalists terminology, but a competitive model that can you know, compete with, rise from and separately from eventually replace um the existing systems, and that's the process of social revolution. Have a video coming up on that in December. Lastly, and this does not apply to every instance of commons management, but in some cases you need the eighth and finale principle for successful commons management, and that is nested enterprises, which is, you know, basically the same principle as an anarchist confederation. You know, if a particular community is access in a commons institution that other communities are access in, or if the commons that a group of communities are access in a part of a larger regional commons or archipelogic commons or continental commons, then he wants to have means of collaboration partom up of course, part of organizations, but you know, maintain the power the local level while coordinating these larger scaled commons and ensuring that there's a smooth running and smooth communication between the appropriators, you know, the people involved. These principles very clearly differentiate between success and the failure cases. To reiterate the commons and the principle of successful commons management as follows, clearly defined boundaries, rules compatible with local conditions, collective decision making power to establish those rules, monitoring to ensure that those rules are compatible with people and conditions. Graduated sanctions to ensure that rules are kept up with and the commons are protected from potential threats, conflict resolution mechanisms because humans are going to human freedom to organize, particularly in the fragilely stages of establishing these projects and nested enterprises confederation from the bottom up. In certain failure cases, we see that, you know, none of the principles apply um. For example, in the book eleanor Austrom references these two Turkish fisheries, the bay of his Mirror and boardroom, where there was severe rent dissipation continuing unabated. Of course, the book was written a while ago, so I'm not sure how the situation has evolved since then. But rent dissipation is basically a circumstance in which the commons cornpool resources are being depleted severely and the sustainability of those comments are at stake. And so with all those principles in place, to all that doesn't happened. Um you get a situation like what's going on? But what was going on in the Bay of His Mirror and put in the Kirin the oil irrigation project in Sri Lanka, they did have clayer boundaries, that one principle in place, but the other principles were not. In Mojave, California, they did have the institution of collective choice, they did have contact resolution mechanisms, and they did have the recognized right to organize, but the other principles are not in place, and so that institution was also a failure. Or we could look at the case in the Mabella fishery also in Sri Lanka, where renticipation had become a very severe problem, particularly after nine Now, they did have rules in place, they did have a monitoring system, but unfortunately, you know, despite having those rules, is probably having you know, regulating regulating the access to the beach and the use of the beach scenes and the control of the number of nets to be used. I mean, they really did try. It wasn't a problem of ignorance the issuers that although they were aware of the consequences of adding too many nets and drawing too much from the fishery, the issue became that the appropriators, the fishermen themselves, they don't have the autonomy to make an enforce the rules of the fishery that was deprived of them, and so the institution was not able to sustain itself in the long term. So in all these cases, you know, no more of the three design principles actually characterized any of these cases, and so they were unable to solve the problems that they faced. They're of course also issues where they are viable but fragile common system where you know, they have more of the principles in place, but they still lack all of them. So awesome Sri Lanka. There's a gal oil where boundaries and membership would clay designated, where rules have been devised and monitored, where collective choice arenas have been set up, but they you know did not have the autonomy and they do not have collect conflict resolution mechanisms in place, and so the institution is not as as robust as it could be. Of course, when it comes to the Commons and existing institutions, existing fragile institutions exist in successful institutions, existing failures of institutions. That does not necessarily need to limit all imagination of possibilities, but it's good to be informed as to what has worked in the past and what hasn't. We can still imagine future scenarios and experiments and how they might play out. But the point is if we're trying to reinstate the Commons, we need to understand what makes them work, at least what has made them work in the past and in the present. More information of the Commons and also the potential of library economy, you can check out my videos on the Commons and the library economy on my channel YouTube dot com slash Andurism. You can also check out Eleanor Ostrom's book Governing the Commons, as well as a book called Eleanor Ostrom's Rules for Radicals, which I haven't read yet, but I felt it was pretty good. If you like what I do. You'd like to support me, you could follow me on pitture dot com slash same true and on Twitter com slash underscore same true. That's all I have for today. It could Happen here piece. It could Happen Here as a production of cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from Zone Media, visit our website cool zone media dot com, or check us out on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone media dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening,