What should a community/nation/state (government) provide for citizens?

[glatt]

And other stuff too, like regulating public resources for the greatest good for individuals.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

And other stuff too, like regulating public resources for the greatest good for individuals.

Public resources? Do you mean like petroleum, natural gas, minerals, timber, water, etc?

[glatt]

Yes. And radio frequencies, etc.

Let's say there is a new colony located at the base of a forest covered mountain. It's very Henry Quirkish where the government just lets people be. And the townsfolk need firewood, so each day the fair citizens go up into the foothills and cut down some trees. After a while, the forest has receded, and the mudslides begin, wiping out the town below. If they had a government regulating how much wood could be taken, and how, the forest could be sustained and also provide some lumber/firewood, and the town doesn't get buried in the mudslide. It's the kind of thing you need a government to control because left to their own devices, each person is going to think that surely cutting down this one tree today for myself isn't going to be a problem.

[henry quirk]

Glatt,

You describe a 'tragedy of the commons'.

Consider: a new colony located at the base of a forest covered mountain. There is no formal governmrnt and each colonist is a self-directing type.

Immediately folks get to claiming property left and right. Of course there'll be skirmishes and jumped claims and bloodshed, but once the dust settles there won't be a 'commons'.

The self-regulation of such an arrangement, I think, is superior to regulation from the outside (or 'above').

[henry quirk]

...for everyone, I'm guessin'.

What's the 'cost' of such a thing?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Immediately folks get to claiming property left and right. Of course there'll be skirmishes and jumped claims and bloodshed, but once the dust settles there won't be a 'commons'.

The self-regulation of such an arrangement, I think, is superior to regulation from the outside (or 'above').

It's substantially inferior, even setting aside bloodshed vs. law, and the dubious concept of "when the dust settles".
"The commons" is not just "unclaimed land". It is also "the forest" that covers all the land parcels. It is in everyone's interest for the forest to be healthy, but it's in each individual's interest to exploit it in their preferred way. If too many of them sell off their lumber, a mudslide takes them all out.

[henry quirk]

"It's substantially inferior"

I disagree.

#

"It's in each individual's interest for the forest to be healthy and used wisely."

Yep.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"It's in each individual's interest for the forest to be healthy and used wisely."

Yep.

Left to their own devices, people time and time again act in a greedy way to get ahead at the expense of society.