Your example is wrong.

All situations should be evaluated and re-evaluated at every instance, at every moment in time to account for new information and not only once at the beginning thinking it'll be the same forever.

Fishing as an individual its fine until too many people start doing it, then it becomes even bad for the individual. It becomes harder to fish, the fish get smaller, the prices drop, etc. Some of those things might be even good for society but not for the individual. At that point you've got to re evaluate your position, and even change your occupation. This is what happens all the time. Individual choices lead the way, society only acts after enough individuals have been affected, not before.

> Individual choices lead the way, society only acts after enough individuals have been affected, not before.

So you are saying there is no way to act with foresight? We can’t get together and decide to curtail individual choice so that we avoid a tragedy of the commons?

I don’t think throwing our hands up in the air and just continuing to destroy commons after commons is a good strategy.

> So you are saying there is no way to act with foresight?

No, I didn't say any of that. All I said is what is bad for society is also bad for the individual.

While this may be true, you seem to be ignoring the prisoner's dilemma part of this... yes, society (and the individuals in it) will be better off if everyone cooperates, but as an individual, it is still always better to defect.

Imagine, for example, there are two companies that make widget foo. They are identical, except Company A charges less than Company B, but Company A pollutes a bunch.

As a society, we want everyone to buy from company B. We would all be better off.

However, that isn't my choice as a consumer. I either buy from B and pay more, and company A still pollutes (one person out of thousands doesn't change the amount of pollution).

Or, I get the cheaper thing from company A, and everything else stays the same.

Why wouldn't I shop at company A? My one purchase wont make or break the company, and it won't change the amount of pollution by any noticeable amount... but I will notice the cheaper price.

This is what a collective action problem is.

These examples all make company A and B as beings outside the community, and that wouldn't be the case. When groups exist outside of societies that are focused on gaining power over others, problems arise.

There’s precedent for human beings cooperating on matters like this to, say, prevent overfishing.

What makes you think such coordination would be impossible in the absence of a hierarchy that boils down to “obey these rules or we’ll put a gun in your face”? Most humans are reasonable and cooperative.

No, I am not saying the threat of violence is the only way to coerce people. I am saying there will need to be coercion of some kind, and relying on individuals making the best choices for themselves does not solve all the problems.

I think that’s the point of the article. There are better, safer, kinder, and more efficient ways of coercing people (with kindness and strong social ties and obligations and contracts, for example) than using top-down laws.

If you believe that the threat of violence isn’t the only way to organize a society’s rules, you’re most of the way there.

Violence isn't necessary 99% of the time, but the fact that it's available that last 1% is why it isn't necessary the other 99%. Some people are absolutely willing to exploit kindness, spurn obligations, and break contracts, if they can.

The fact that there exists a system of consequences backed by violence is what makes people follow social rules. Maybe the community's punishment for vandalism is a fine, or some kind of public service; I'm only willing to pay that penalty because of the threat of state violence being used against me if I don't. I'm all for minimizing the use of violence to enforce social mores as much as possible, but if it's not available at all, we start running into problems enforcing the milder, non-violent social consequences which we strive to use 99% of the time.

If someone attacks someone else and is sent to rehabilitative counseling, how do we make sure they go? In order to enforce the humane response, a violent response needs to exist as a backup.

I’m fairly sure there will remain sufficient coercive threat of human violence to keep society existing and operating well even without a state.