the common good..GROWING BY SHARING..THE COMMON WEAL*
[community wealth self management/acting locally/personally

http://www.dw.de/who-owns-the-world-growing-by-sharing/a-17630124

lets give it a go?
sharing..IS THAT WISE?

what is a commons BUT A LOCAL LEVEL OF GOVERNANCE

Why is the concept of common property so popular today?
And does it offer a solution to future conflicts over resources?

Common property derives from the cooperative efforts of its owners, at their own initiative. Throughout history, people have worked together to manage natural resources including water, forest land and fishing grounds – to preserve them for future generations.

A good example of this concept can be found in the mountain pastures of Switzerland. The idea of common property has become more popular recently in several sectors of society.

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

SOME/MORE..re OSTRAM..[the only femaIl NOBEL PRIZE WINING WOMAN]

Her later, and more famous, work focused on how humans interact with ecosystems to maintain long-term sustainable resource yields. Common pool resources include many forests, fisheries, oil fields, grazing lands, and irrigation systems. She conducted her field studies on the management of pasture by locals in Africa and irrigation systems management in villages of western Nepal (e.g. Dang).

Her work has considered how societies have developed diverse institutional arrangements for managing natural resources and avoiding ecosystem collapse in many cases, even though some arrangements have failed to prevent resource exhaustion. Her work emphasized the multifaceted nature of human–ecosystem interaction and argues against any singular "panacea" for individual social-ecological system problems.

Design principles for Common Pool Resource (CPR) institutions[edit]

Ostrom identified eight "design principles" of stable local common pool resource management:[19]

1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);
2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;
3. Collective-choice arrangements that 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. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;
7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; and
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.

‘morning OUG,

Sharing is only relevant in the context of some having more than others, which is, has and always will be the case. This leaves us as humans with two responses.

The first is altruism, I have more therefore I will give to those who have less.

The second is envy, you have more therefore you should give me some of yours.

It would be nice if those who have more offered some of it to others. It would also be nice if those who had less were not driven by envy. Sadly the nature of being human means that we are all driven by self interest, except for those who insist they are not.

Ever since the basic units of societies began to emerge millennia ago, those societies have sought to “correct” human behavior with rules. There are some 34,000 registered religions with hundreds of thousands of rules. Added to these are legal, social, economic, business, civic, political and ecological rules, they must easily run into the millions.

The vast sum total of all these rules has made no difference to human behavior, we are still human. One of the saddest indictments of these failures, are proposals to take moral/value/ideological tenets, graft them forcibly onto other rules and make an entirely new species of rules!

Such proposals recognize the futility of trying to “correct” human behavior whilst also being guilty of taking our species even further into our sickness.

Perhaps the real scourge on our societies are those who seek to steer us from behind the high moral ramparts?

Any set of rules is going to be exploited, one under god. That's because we are human beings with instincts that include self-preservation, protection of loved ones and a desire for control over our environment.

Take your Nobel prizewinner's suggestion #1, as an example.

"1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties)"

Think about that one for a moment.

Look back over history, and try to identify one example where this has been regarded as completely satisfactory, at a national level, by those concerned. Think of the history of Europe, with special reference to, say the Balkans. Or to the history of the Middle East, where Britain and France drew some "clearly defined boundaries" a hundred years ago. Even Australia, which has some pretty easily defined boundaries, is still riven by discontent over i) its relationship with Aboriginals and ii) its relationship with more recent arrivals.

It's impressive to be the first female to win a Nobel Prize in Economics. But her suggestions reek of the closeted academic, and can only possibly be applicable in a tight, isolated community. Even then, should these rules successfully create economic disparity with a neighbouring village, the social applecart may still be upended through friction, or even war.

Abbott thinks he owns the world. He was the one trying a coalition of carbon deniers together, Obama had to streighten him out.

Now we have no 2 IC here keeping his eye on things.

So i would say America has the biggest share of this world, because when America says something they expect to be heard.

Well put Pericles,

Current research shows that there are a number of factors that are conditioning human reactions to anything and everything.

1. I.Q. this is our genetically inherited raw intelligence capacity
2. Personality type (the nine personality types as defined in enneagrams – Helen Palmer – self knowledge or spiritual I.Q)
3. Our Desires for Fame, Love, Affluence and Power (Goethe)
4. Emotional I.Q. (the four stages of emotional development)
5. Attitudes, Values and Beliefs (AVB’s) (Social I.Q, adopted or mandated by societies/politics/religions)

It is the seemingly endless permutations of these factors that produce what we have come to understand as the human “individualism” of the current 7 billion humans on our planet.

Humans have created millions of rules to accommodate these variables but incredibly we now fight over the very rules we have created!

Without rules humanity would have to depend upon all humans to always do the “right thing”, to be moral and not react “offensively”. Whilst the answer of removing the rules in order that humans can’t break them certainly fits the problem, it is not an effective solution unless we can find a replacement.

You might say; “if there are no rules or codes, our societies would collapse under the weight of anarchy and terror” to which I would reply “but we have rules and we do break them, as a consequence some of our societies are already facing collapse under the weight of anarchy and terror”

The hypothesis of a moral society being that if humans can internally extinguish their nasty bits, negative reactions and self interest, we could possibly move to a state where we are all capable of connecting, empathising and positively reacting with other members of the human race. Such a “benign” human state would then form the basis for global equity and justice.

This must evolve and cannot be forced by more rules.