Who Stole The future

[MSimon]

If you look at what she found it starts with property rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties);
2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources are adapted to local conditions;
3. Collective-choice arrangements allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;
4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
5. There is a scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution are cheap and of easy access;
7. The self-determination of the community is recognized by higher-level authorities;
8. In the case of larger common-pool resources: organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.

#1. Property rights
#2. Laws
#3. Legislature
#4. Police
#5. Penalties for violating the laws
#6. Arbitration for conflicts
#7. Federalism
#8. A hierarchy of multiple isolated jurisdictions

Ordered liberty.

In fact what she says works sounds a LOT like the USA system. Sneaky.

[alexjrgreen]

#1. Property rights

Community property rights but not necessarily individual property rights.

#2. Laws
#3. Legislature

Something more informal, more like the rules of sport.

#4. Police

No - paid referees.

#7. Federalism

Often but not always. A culturally established division of roles will do.

[MSimon]

#1. Property rights

Community property rights but not necessarily individual property rights.

Nope. Individual property rights in community property. Marriage works like that.

#2. Laws
#3. Legislature

Something more informal, more like the rules of sport.

I'm not arguing identical. I'm arguing equivalent.

#4. Police

No - paid referees.

Differing from police in what essential way?

#7. Federalism

Often but not always. A culturally established division of roles will do.

And how is that unwritten constitution working out in Britain?

[alexjrgreen]

#1. Property rights

Community property rights but not necessarily individual property rights.

Nope. Individual property rights in community property. Marriage works like that.

Read further:

Generations of Swiss and Japanese villagers have learned the relative benefits and costs of private-property and communal-property institutions related to various types of land and uses of land. The villagers in both settings have chosen to retain the institution of communal property as the foundation for land use and similar important aspects of village economies. The economic survival of these villagers has been dependent on the skill with which they have used their limited resources. One cannot view communal property in these settings as the primordial remains of earlier institutions evolved in a land of plenty. If the transcation costs involved in managing communal property had been excessive, compared with private-property institutions, the villagers would have had many opportunities to devise different land-tenure arrangements for the mountain commons.

Elinor Ostrom, Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action, Chapter 3.

#2. Laws
#3. Legislature

Something more informal, more like the rules of sport.

I'm not arguing identical. I'm arguing equivalent.

#4. Police

No - paid referees.

Differing from police in what essential way?

They're not part of the state and can't take away your liberty.

#7. Federalism

Often but not always. A culturally established division of roles will do.

And how is that unwritten constitution working out in Britain?

Ridiculously well...

[IntLibber]

The USA was founded on the idea of ordered liberty. A set of limited rules and otherwise you can go about your business.

I do not think no rules works well. You get the anarchos breaking things and stealing as much as they can if they feel they have been wronged.

No rules means impolite anarchists become dead anarchists rather quickly. This stuff has all been gone over in depth, read David Friedmans "The Machinery of Freedom"

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertari ... arian.html

[MSimon]

I note that Brits have effectively lost the right of self defense. To the point of bans on many sharp edged weapons.

In America, after a decline, that right has been extended IIRC to 48 of the 50 States. Concealed carry and open carry laws. Illinois is one of the exceptions.

So what would a badly working unwritten Constitution look like?

BTW in America the defense of collective property rights is handled through tort law. And tort law can't take your rights.

[MSimon]

Further. It seems that ecology inspectors can enter your home in England without a warrant or even probable cause.

The rule used to be "a man's home is his castle". I guess it has been changed to "a man's home is Her Majesty's Castle."

[alexjrgreen]

So what would a badly working unwritten Constitution look like?

Our Constitution isn't totally unwritten - the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are still there, overlaid with a considerable depth of case law and customary practice.

MPs facing police over expenses look to ancient Bill of Rights for protection

We've had two opportunities recently to switch to a written constitution. The current British Government's attempt to introduce a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities was abandoned last year and the European Union's attempt to introduce a written constitution was thrown out by the French(!) and the Dutch before we got a chance to vote on it.