“You didn’t commit extra crimes, but it requires more resources to protect you from crimes. (And again, since you are a single person, the extra resources get lost in the noise. But if many people did this, there would be more crime.)”
Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals? It seems you are quite literally blaming (potential) victims for their drag on society. Doesn’t 100% of the responsibility for that, and whatever costs are incurred lie with those who would do the crimes?
The rest of it, about shoplifting, seems hard to connect, as no one is advocating doing something illegal. I think what I said above about creating slack is less speculative than you are making it out to be (especially given many of the real conditions, as I pointed out above).
To try and do justice to the rest of your post… are you saying that people would just see someone riding around the island, camping outside as a public nuisance, basically, and dislike it, so therefore it shouldn’t be done?
(A) What would balance the “dislike” concern? I give you credit that you do not believe we should infinitely defer to the possibility that society would find a set of actions distasteful. I guess it is correct that a few frowns if someone found out I was sleeping in a Hammock in the woods might matter, though we don’t also know who would think it was cool. FWIW, old people walking on the mountain trails some mornings who saw me camping out usually smiled and said “Oh, ni li hai!” (“You are very capable” which is normally a compliment). So how much deference do we owe to what amounts to speculations of distaste?
(B) A lot of the objection also seems to revolve around speculation that “if more people did this, a cascade of bad outcomes would happen.” I think this is resolvable to (1) apparently there is systemic equilibrium in that most other people empirically do not choose to do this (and those who have no choice are a separate problem where everything we are saying is basically moot, the discussion would be a completely different one) and (2) your speculations that outcomes should be bad still seems to have at most equal footing to my speculations that it should be good or neutral.
So what level of deference do we owe to speculations of bad outcomes in the contra-factual case if my behavior somehow caught on with more people and they did what I am doing?
(C) Normal cases of destroying the commons usually require that the equilibrium of people choosing to do something tends towards overwhelming the common resource. In the USA, you see signs and ordinances trying to stop people from sleeping outside, so that equilibrium is currently out of balance (and most of those people do not have a choice). Without evidence, is there even any reason for me not to assume the system in Taiwan is currently in a functional and fine equilibrium at whatever number of people do what I was doing?
(TL;DR: D) I still think there may be something inside what you are saying that “Systems are designed on a set of assumptions, and this constitutes the social contract. Violating those assumptions always produces an unexpected systemic draw.” As a systems engineer, I find this line of thinking intriguing. What I would guess is actually happening is there are many different forms of such draws. Most look different to mine, and look different to each other, but indeed, each stepping out of bounds of systemic assumptions and legibility does create a draw on the system. I am not quite sure how to address this, as it is extremely difficult to know if and what damage is being done, as it all amounts to noise.
It seems like there is some argument to be made that we should try to operate within all established social systems. However, I don’t think it’s infinitely true. The question then, like all my other points above, how much? If I guess I am contributing more than I am taking by my level of noise then is this okay? Moreover, am I even being accurate in understanding my own level of systemic draining noise? How much can I actually go around knowing if a particular action is producing a drain at all (I’m still not convinced being voluntarily unhoused did that in Taiwan)? Should I run it like GARP accounting standards where I always rule against myself, and if there is any question I am creating noise which increases systemic burdens, I should not do the action?
Honestly, maybe as a default that is okay. However, at some point, if I did it all the time, then the lack of slack may create enough drains on the user that their reduced mental health or capacity ends up creating a bigger drain. In other words, I am willing to take that position and I think you are correct about it if that’s the crux of your argument—but I think that would need to be held very loosely, otherwise we would do more damage handcuffing ourselves than the system noise of our lives.
Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals?
It’s on both.
The rest of it, about shoplifting, seems hard to connect, as no one is advocating doing something illegal.
The shoplifting comparison has nothing to do with whether shoplifting is illegal. The point of the comparison is that you can endlessly speculate that something really has a positive effect by imagining some scenario where it does. I am able to imagine such a positive effect for shoplifting, but it would not convince you that shoplifting is positive. I’m not going to be convinced that homelessness is positive by you imagining some scenario where it is.
If I guess I am contributing more than I am taking by my level of noise then is this okay?
My answer to this is the same as for the similar question about shoplifting: I would expect that if homelessness or shoplifting had a positive effect, stores and governments would act as though it does. You personally cannot become “okay” on your own—you don’t get to decide that your shoplifting is actually contributing more to tourist publicity than it harms the stores, and you don’t get to decide that your homelessness creates a positive contribution.
“Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals?”
“It’s on both”
These situations seem to be very extreme, but I have this less dark example: Say I go swimming in a place where the lifeguard can’t see me. Is it my fault I drowned or the lifeguards? The lifeguard is supposed to watch everyone… but I put myself in that situation in the first place. (After typing this out I realized it’s still pretty dark, oh well)
“Of course, you can argue “if they didn’t want homeless people using them, they shouldn’t provide them for free to homeless people”. The consequence of this attitude, at large, is why we can’t have nice things.” - (This was in the second-from-the-top comment in this chain)
Another extreme situation. Here’s a similar but softer one which seems positive... Airplane tickets to Las Vegas are often much cheaper than tickets to literally anywhere else. That’s because Las Vegas bets that people will be attracted to the cheap tickets and go to Las Vegas, then proceed to spend tons of money at the casinos. My family doesn’t go to these casinos, we just travel to Vegas because we have friends nearby. We’re benefiting but not contributing.
My point is that I noticed that some of the situations Jiao Bu’s been in can be rewritten to get the other person to react differently. Maybe that’s just me, though.
Say I go swimming in a place where the lifeguard can’t see me. Is it my fault I drowned or the lifeguards?
The issue is not whose fault it is for the crime, but whose fault it is for the using up the extra resources to prevent the crime, which is not an issue in the lifeguard example. And that itself is a specific case of “how much more than average do you have to use the commons before you can be blamed for overusing the commons”. Which is partly a matter of degree and depends on things like how much you use it, what people’s expectations are, what reasonable expectations are, and what the intentions are of the people providing the resources.
My family doesn’t go to these casinos, we just travel to Vegas because we have friends nearby. We’re benefiting but not contributing.
I’ve done that myself (for busses to Atlantic City). Since the owner can change the price freely, and can change it incrementally or for specific customers, I’d generally not consider it to be overusing the commons if there is a price. In the case of loss-leader trips, it’s also very hard to overuse the trips anyway, as opposed to just using them more than average—you probably couldn’t use more than one trip every couple of days.
If stores in Taiwan charged for use of bathrooms, and the government rented out spaces for homeless on the ground, and charged a “homeless stay tax” which covers the costs of police and such, I would agree that it would be okay to go homeless and use them at the given prices. (If there is a two tier price where the homeless are charged more, the homeless tourist would have to pay the homeless tier price, and not cheat even if it isn’t enforced well.)
“You didn’t commit extra crimes, but it requires more resources to protect you from crimes. (And again, since you are a single person, the extra resources get lost in the noise. But if many people did this, there would be more crime.)”
Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals? It seems you are quite literally blaming (potential) victims for their drag on society. Doesn’t 100% of the responsibility for that, and whatever costs are incurred lie with those who would do the crimes?
The rest of it, about shoplifting, seems hard to connect, as no one is advocating doing something illegal. I think what I said above about creating slack is less speculative than you are making it out to be (especially given many of the real conditions, as I pointed out above).
To try and do justice to the rest of your post… are you saying that people would just see someone riding around the island, camping outside as a public nuisance, basically, and dislike it, so therefore it shouldn’t be done?
(A) What would balance the “dislike” concern? I give you credit that you do not believe we should infinitely defer to the possibility that society would find a set of actions distasteful. I guess it is correct that a few frowns if someone found out I was sleeping in a Hammock in the woods might matter, though we don’t also know who would think it was cool. FWIW, old people walking on the mountain trails some mornings who saw me camping out usually smiled and said “Oh, ni li hai!” (“You are very capable” which is normally a compliment). So how much deference do we owe to what amounts to speculations of distaste?
(B) A lot of the objection also seems to revolve around speculation that “if more people did this, a cascade of bad outcomes would happen.” I think this is resolvable to (1) apparently there is systemic equilibrium in that most other people empirically do not choose to do this (and those who have no choice are a separate problem where everything we are saying is basically moot, the discussion would be a completely different one) and (2) your speculations that outcomes should be bad still seems to have at most equal footing to my speculations that it should be good or neutral.
So what level of deference do we owe to speculations of bad outcomes in the contra-factual case if my behavior somehow caught on with more people and they did what I am doing?
(C) Normal cases of destroying the commons usually require that the equilibrium of people choosing to do something tends towards overwhelming the common resource. In the USA, you see signs and ordinances trying to stop people from sleeping outside, so that equilibrium is currently out of balance (and most of those people do not have a choice). Without evidence, is there even any reason for me not to assume the system in Taiwan is currently in a functional and fine equilibrium at whatever number of people do what I was doing?
(TL;DR: D) I still think there may be something inside what you are saying that “Systems are designed on a set of assumptions, and this constitutes the social contract. Violating those assumptions always produces an unexpected systemic draw.” As a systems engineer, I find this line of thinking intriguing. What I would guess is actually happening is there are many different forms of such draws. Most look different to mine, and look different to each other, but indeed, each stepping out of bounds of systemic assumptions and legibility does create a draw on the system. I am not quite sure how to address this, as it is extremely difficult to know if and what damage is being done, as it all amounts to noise.
It seems like there is some argument to be made that we should try to operate within all established social systems. However, I don’t think it’s infinitely true. The question then, like all my other points above, how much? If I guess I am contributing more than I am taking by my level of noise then is this okay? Moreover, am I even being accurate in understanding my own level of systemic draining noise? How much can I actually go around knowing if a particular action is producing a drain at all (I’m still not convinced being voluntarily unhoused did that in Taiwan)? Should I run it like GARP accounting standards where I always rule against myself, and if there is any question I am creating noise which increases systemic burdens, I should not do the action?
Honestly, maybe as a default that is okay. However, at some point, if I did it all the time, then the lack of slack may create enough drains on the user that their reduced mental health or capacity ends up creating a bigger drain. In other words, I am willing to take that position and I think you are correct about it if that’s the crux of your argument—but I think that would need to be held very loosely, otherwise we would do more damage handcuffing ourselves than the system noise of our lives.
It’s on both.
The shoplifting comparison has nothing to do with whether shoplifting is illegal. The point of the comparison is that you can endlessly speculate that something really has a positive effect by imagining some scenario where it does. I am able to imagine such a positive effect for shoplifting, but it would not convince you that shoplifting is positive. I’m not going to be convinced that homelessness is positive by you imagining some scenario where it is.
My answer to this is the same as for the similar question about shoplifting: I would expect that if homelessness or shoplifting had a positive effect, stores and governments would act as though it does. You personally cannot become “okay” on your own—you don’t get to decide that your shoplifting is actually contributing more to tourist publicity than it harms the stores, and you don’t get to decide that your homelessness creates a positive contribution.
“Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals?”
“It’s on both”
These situations seem to be very extreme, but I have this less dark example: Say I go swimming in a place where the lifeguard can’t see me. Is it my fault I drowned or the lifeguards? The lifeguard is supposed to watch everyone… but I put myself in that situation in the first place. (After typing this out I realized it’s still pretty dark, oh well)
“Of course, you can argue “if they didn’t want homeless people using them, they shouldn’t provide them for free to homeless people”. The consequence of this attitude, at large, is why we can’t have nice things.”
- (This was in the second-from-the-top comment in this chain)
Another extreme situation. Here’s a similar but softer one which seems positive...
Airplane tickets to Las Vegas are often much cheaper than tickets to literally anywhere else. That’s because Las Vegas bets that people will be attracted to the cheap tickets and go to Las Vegas, then proceed to spend tons of money at the casinos. My family doesn’t go to these casinos, we just travel to Vegas because we have friends nearby. We’re benefiting but not contributing.
My point is that I noticed that some of the situations Jiao Bu’s been in can be rewritten to get the other person to react differently. Maybe that’s just me, though.
The issue is not whose fault it is for the crime, but whose fault it is for the using up the extra resources to prevent the crime, which is not an issue in the lifeguard example. And that itself is a specific case of “how much more than average do you have to use the commons before you can be blamed for overusing the commons”. Which is partly a matter of degree and depends on things like how much you use it, what people’s expectations are, what reasonable expectations are, and what the intentions are of the people providing the resources.
I’ve done that myself (for busses to Atlantic City). Since the owner can change the price freely, and can change it incrementally or for specific customers, I’d generally not consider it to be overusing the commons if there is a price. In the case of loss-leader trips, it’s also very hard to overuse the trips anyway, as opposed to just using them more than average—you probably couldn’t use more than one trip every couple of days.
If stores in Taiwan charged for use of bathrooms, and the government rented out spaces for homeless on the ground, and charged a “homeless stay tax” which covers the costs of police and such, I would agree that it would be okay to go homeless and use them at the given prices. (If there is a two tier price where the homeless are charged more, the homeless tourist would have to pay the homeless tier price, and not cheat even if it isn’t enforced well.)