THE PUBLIC RESOURCES DILEMMA

+many thanks to Michael Tuck for sharing his thoughts on Ayn Rand

Unrestricted access to public goods and resources: this is one issue that researchers have tried to address several times, by modelling and predicting the behavior of the masses in game like situations – altogether known as “The Public Resources dilemma”. Theoretically, there wouldn’t be such a thing as unrestricted access. Communities naturally create, enforce and conform to various rules – even when words like unrestricted, unlimited and free are used… generously.

Game theory has shown that, in the Public Goods Dilemma or similar game-like situations, most people naturally tend to form two distinctive groups, with predictable patterns of behavior: first, there are people who tend to take hold of everything (especially if it’s “free”) and always try to benefit as much as possible from their “share” and even try to get more than it would be possible, if all available resources would be shared equally. They usually play out dominant strategies, until they are seriously reprimanded or until restrictions and penalties are established.

The other type of players usually play sub-optimal strategies, having a more collaborative approach – such as using only what they need or sharing what they have with other people. This type of gregarious behavior leads to lower personal benefits and higher “common” benefits to go beyond the actual use of resources, such as – an enhanced feeling of belonging to a community that shares and helps people access what they need. But in time, if sub-optimal strategies are played predominantly by all individuals in a community, that community is more likely to reach an equilibrium than any other society, ruled by a few dominant individuals. In business and marketing, access to common goods and natural resources is mediated via services and products but so far this model proved to be less sustainable. The reason for that is – it encouraged people to buy goods, use them and throw them away; it encouraged people to think that once they buy “electricity”/ “water” and “fuel” it belongs to them and they can use it the way they wish to and this overall leads to gradual depletion of resources and conflicting dominant strategies played by people who afford them.

If marketing communication officers continue to encourage consumers to pay attention to what they get instead of what they need (quantity vs. quality), to what they think is cool to have , but does not define them, then maybe there is something wrong going on here. The goal of consumption gradually shifts towards maximum exploitation of resources, and not to towards the most efficient and rational use of them.

AYN RAND ON PUBLIC GOODS

To be selfish is to be concerned by what serves one’s interest and be motivated by that. Ayn Rand sapiently draws a line between selfishness as a natural tendency to stay true to one’s own values and moral objectives AND selfishness as a trait that people most often frown upon.
In the case of Public Goods Dilemma, being selfish does not mean playing out dominant strategies all the time. For example, sharing one’s own resources with another person brings the same satisfaction and even a certain type of selfish pleasure derived from being helpful to other people – and therefore that person will play sub-optimal strategies in the Public Goods game because public resources are less important to him than the feeling of satisfaction he experiences while sharing. The thing is, this generous caring person is very selfish after all because he is more concerned with what makes him feel happy and satisfied – that is let other people benefit from his share; than he is about using his share of goods efficiently. The opposite, if a person is concerned with what he gets for himself, again he will act selfishly and play out strictly dominant strategies and even try to benefit from the Public Goods system more than anybody else. He may be more concerned with using his own share for himself, and less concerned about whether everybody gets their share and whether they are able to have equal access to those resources (collective goods). Both types of individuals are selfish because they act according to their own priorities and values. But while the more generous selfish people have no business managing public goods efficiently (because they tend to satisfy other people’s requests rather than objective needs), the self-centered type of individual who gets his share only for himself has no business assuming he is a good team-player and thus further request his share of Public Goods, because those goods are made accessible by a community he does not want to belong to if he consistently plays out strictly dominant strategies.

THE SOLUTION

I know this is a highly controversial subject.

Thanks to my friend, Michael Tuck I have learnt that Ayn Rand’s approach is not to be taken to heart, or it will make you a bitter, isolated and confused human being. Although I love her stand on what selfishness means (ideally) – and this is where Michael would strongly disagree (that there is anything to love about Ayn’s idea of selfishness) – Ayn Rand is a cold-hearted philosophette fascinated with an ideal man which is more likely a paria of society, than a responsible, creative individual that we like to think an ideal man should be.

I do not have a solution to the Public Goods Dilemma. Maybe you do. If you do, share your thoughts on that. You can even say I’m completely wrong. It’s constructive to know I may be – and why.

And Michael, thank you for sharing your thougths with me. I look forward to reading your blog post – I think so many people would find it really insightful and maybe you could help them find a balance between Rand and Deepak Chopra (haha).

Advertisement