RE: Ideological Failures at Addressing Climate Change
Well, take a look at the classic example that the tragedy of the commons is named for. Medieval English villages had a commons, or common green- a place where villagers could graze their sheep and cattle and the like when their pasturage was getting a little low on feed. The strategy that makes the most sense from an individual level is to exploit the commons as much as possible, which when everyone does, the commons is denuded and destroyed. (As happened often.) When, instead, the village controlled more strictly who could use the commons to prevent overgrazing, it became much more useful over the long term, benefiting more people. Admittedly that benefit was by a smaller amount than would be received by short term exploitation- but it lasted much, much longer, and that adds up in the end.
I see what you mean by exploiting the commons as much as possible for individual gains, but this is short term thinking. In the long run if individuals exploit the commons as much as possible there would be no commons later on to benefit from.
OK, so if this control is based on each individual agreeing that the village should be able to regulate the commons, this is not mutually exclusive toward free association or self-governance. The problem occurs when people are forced to abide by certain controls without any chance to opt-out or the possibility of reforms within the village.This is when some individuals start to get greedy and exploit as much as possible, sort of like blowback causing the classic tragedy of the commons.
If there's one thing that history shows, it's that individuals almost never think in the long run- they always exploit the commons until it's destroyed unless restrained by social mores or government restrictions or the like. You can only reasonably expect someone to think in three generations- their parents, themselves, and their grandchildren, and even that's too much to ask from a great many people. And as for having opt-out from the regulations governing the commons- the only reason to opt out would be to exploit said commons beyond fairness. This is, essentially, how the needs of society and the individual diverge. To put it in utilitarian terms, the needs of society provide for individuals, but do not maximize their gains. It is in the best interest of the individuals to maximize their gains, but that is often harmful to society at large in many situations.
I won't disagree with that, the masses of humanity definitely are short-termers best suited for collectivism; although it's sort of unfortunate for those rare individuals who are not like that and have to face this burden of sacrificing their autonomy.
Well, you also might want to opt-out because you don't think the the authority behind the commons is being organized fairly.
I think the crux of this issue is whether or not the individual is more important than the collective. Personally, I believe in freedom regardless of the utilitarian benefits or disadvantages; history has also shown that "society at large" has been responsible for death and misery for millions of people, while individuals have been behind innovation and art that have bettered humanity.