One of Illich's most important ideas was the "Radical Monopoly," using cars in cities as an example, where the car operates as a monopoly technology, dominating what was previously a commons. The only way to rebel against it was to walk and ride bicycles, even though your participation in cities in these modes would be less efficient, higher risk, and generally inferior to that of using a car.
And yet, just in the last 25 years people inspired by Illich who were cyclists and pedestrians formed movements (also using the ideas of Jane Jacobs) for walkable cities and neighbourhoods, and bike lanes. I think these movements have had some success re-establishing a new commons carved out of the one dominated by cars.
I think the internet, and the internet giants form one of these radical monopolies. The equivalent to being a cyclist 25 years ago but on the internet today would be using things like BSD or linux, Pinephones, Matrix, DDG, and in particular, it would mean largely eschewing the browser as a means for entertainment.
Maybe there is a new commons movement just ahead of us?
There has been a similar movement with billboards, too. I’m reminded of this recent reddit post[1] showing before & after photos of Poland. I think there are a few states in the US that prohibit outdoor advertising, too. I suppose a city’s ambience is a “commons” in a way.
Interesting article. Here's a point of critique: I think highways and motorways are still commons –– At least in countries where their maintenance is paid by state money, ie. where they are not private roads. This is the classical argument of having the state in charge of providing the infrastructure (such as streets, but also water, electricity or fast internet). Here in Germany, privatisation of infrastructure is a frequent point of discussion and anger. From my point of view, this is the modern equivalent of the "commons become [...]" discussion, where [...] is now more like "bought by private companies" then "productive ressources".
The roads are still not commons. Their use is regulated by the State and they are owned by the State. It's certainly much closer to the commons than private property for profit, but it's not quite it.
I think you're missing the point (or maybe it's me !). Commons in the article are something that nobody owns, not even the state. It's something that is there, that is used, that is part of the local culture and used in a shared way without any sense of ownership. Saying the state owns the roads is fine, but it still strips from the community the possibility to do whatever with it.
I don't think the article talks about privatisation, but rather talks about ownership, and more importantly, about lack of ownership. In a capitalist world, something owned by noone quickly get a flag planted in it saying "this is mine" by some organisation. And that how you transform public space, plant species, spectrum frequencies, ...
> Before [enclosure], most of the environment had been considered as commons from which most people could draw most of their sustenance without needing to take recourse to the market.
I think this is the point. Not that the resource is completely unregulated, but that the common person can benefit from it without constantly having to compete in the market.
I wouldn't consider simple regulation an enclosing of the commons, but when you add on to the need to invest capital in the form of vehicle registration fees and license fees, it starts to become more enclosed.
England? You need a licence to drive certain motor vehicles but even that doesn't, I think, though I may be wrong here, have anything to do with roads, in that you'd need the same licence to drive the same motor vehicle in any public place. Not that there are many non-road public places where you would be allowed to drive a motor vehicle. A few beaches, perhaps?
> This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.
> The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders.
> Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.
> Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
You're saying that all road users, even pedestrians and cyclists, have to obey the highway code. But the parent comment never stated otherwise. They said that only certain types of vehicles need to be licenced. They seem to be referring to road tax, rather than MOT which is closer to a licence, but either way they're correct (albeit being a bit pedantic with the GP comment).
This is all rather off-topic, but there are several legal requirements in the UK:
* driving licence (for the driver; possible exceptions for agricultural vehicles and armed forces who sometimes employ people under 17)
* vehicle tax (for the vehicle; it's zero for some historic vehicles)
* vehicle must be registered
* MOT (vehicle is inspected annually to check it works properly)
* insurance (third-party)
I suspect the requirement for insurance applies even to driving on private land if there's any possibility of other people being around, such as if there's a right of way across the land. As a random private individual you might find it hard to get insurance for a driver without a licence and a vehicle without an MOT, but there are companies that offer driving a car round a special course as a supervised activity for children's parties ...
> [The commons] in a strictly economic sense, was not perceived as scarce.
I think this is crucial distinction that is missing from most folks' rhetorical use of "commons". Once the reality of scarcity is perceptible, some form of rationing will always take place, typically expressed as "ownership" (e.g., by the lord via enclosure, or privately via homesteading). As such, there can be no "commons" of a scarce resource. At best, the owner can permit actions which mimic those of a commons.
> The issue which I propose for discussion should therefore be clear: how to counter the encroachment of new, electronic devices and systems upon commons that are more subtle and more intimate to our being than either grassland or roads
I fear we're way past any form of commons, from land, sea, air, space, even radio wave frequencies are sliced up, sold, paid for and controlled. Even when stepping in 'nature', it's governed by laws that state what you can and can't do. I can't think of a thing we don't regulate and I don't think that'll ever go away.
These laws and regulations are about protecting the commons. You're prevented from polluting on public land so that it remains usable by others into the future; you can't just set up a high powered transmitter and jam everyone because then all the other radio equipment sharing that space would stop working. If you want to operate a boat on the open water above a certain size, you need the proper lights to ensure that everyone is safe out there.
The tragedy of the commons would be if these things weren't enforced so that the various commons descended into anarchy and a dumping ground for externalities.
Use of the commons was still regulated. It just wasn't regulated using relationships of ownership or using the state. If you were dumping externalities people would get angry, get together, and eventually you would be stopped.
The purpose of the Enclosure Act wasn't to solve a tragedy of the commons. It was to steal the common from the goose.
I'm not saying we shouldn't protect the environment, control air space, restrict the use of radio frequencies, etc. I'm merely stating that, for better or worse, true unregulated commons no longer exist. Any hunter gatherers that still exist are merely tolerated.
Indeed. This is, sadly, an unavoidable consequence of a society increasingly based on relations of ownership to maintain social coherence. Communal relationships even under the égide of the state become increasingly difficult and impossible.
A similar thing is happening in Morocco. So far the best theory I heard of why it happens - which I especially respect because it is so old.
The theory is that the increase in reliance on the market to organize one's life leads one to understand the real social relationships in society no longer as relationships between real people, but instead as relationships between material objects, thus alienating people from the societies that are important to them.
It stops being because of Walid at the grocery store that you get eggs, but instead because of The Store that you can do so, so why care about Walid anymore? It's not thanks to Pierre down the road that your driveway is clear of snow anymore, it's thanks to The Snow-shoveling Company, defined by the amount of snow left, the average price, and the time at which they come (regulated of course by The Market) that you have a shoveled driveway, so what's the point in caring who Pierre is?
As you stop understanding the relationships and the value that allows you to live your life in social terms, there is no longer a reason to care about who your neighbors are unless they actively impede you, and the converse too.
I don't know if it's the correct one, but as this sort of phenomenon is so strongly correlates with economic development it rings very true to me.
There is the whole issue with child freedom, where my parent's generation would roam the entire city from the age of 10, I had to constantly report where I was, and these days kids can't go to school by themselves untill they are 16 or something. They are super-sheltered.
This 'zero risk' 'stranger danger' attitude is somehow synonimous with not know who anyone is, and being afraid of them
The best I could come up with is music. Now, that's obviously a nuanced discussion. But I think it's the closest we've got.
It's only regulated in certain circumstances, it has been commercialized yet anyone can make it or listen to it still, and it is definitely something that people take and meld into their own. It's just about the purest form of expression we commonly exchange between cultures big and small, international and local.
Again, definitely worthy of debate, but you're not wrong when you suggest it's slim pickings. That's all I could come up with.
And yet, just in the last 25 years people inspired by Illich who were cyclists and pedestrians formed movements (also using the ideas of Jane Jacobs) for walkable cities and neighbourhoods, and bike lanes. I think these movements have had some success re-establishing a new commons carved out of the one dominated by cars.
I think the internet, and the internet giants form one of these radical monopolies. The equivalent to being a cyclist 25 years ago but on the internet today would be using things like BSD or linux, Pinephones, Matrix, DDG, and in particular, it would mean largely eschewing the browser as a means for entertainment.
Maybe there is a new commons movement just ahead of us?