[MUSIC]

So in, in, in, in some ways the a lot depends on where you position

reciprocity if you're, in the h squared stream

and, and you, you have this self-interested person.

Kind of thinking about whether I want reciprocity or

not, or just pursuing his or her own particular self-interest.

And, and nostrum's stream and others, we read Benkler in this class,

reciprocity is there at the start, and

then that makes a big difference, doesn't it?

>> Absolutely, and the problem that Hobbes has, is how do you.

It's a kind of a catch-22 problem.

If we have a structure here we're there's a

social expectations of reciprocity, and people therefore are benefiting

from those networks that provide that kind of reciprocity,

and the opportunities to engage cooperatively with others and making

everybody better off. Then it's in your self interest.

>> Yeah >> To play by the rules.

>> Right. >> In places where you don't have it.

Then, how do you get it rolling?

>> Yeah. >> Because that requires trust.

>> Right.

>> And if you don't already have reciprocity, how can you.

>> How do you generate trust, yeah. Yeah.

And we, we're, we're going to be talking to Lewis Hyde in this, in

this class, whose work on on the commons and, and, has been so important, and

on the gift for artists in the

United States and for thinking about intellectual property.

And, and, he, he really insists on the, on, on the mistake

of trying to separate the ego, or the individual, from systems of reciprocity

as a starting point because, because then you're always concerned about how to

protect that individual rather than how to nourish an ongoing web of reciprocity

that is part of what it means to be human. >> Absolutely, yeah,

that's absolutely right. And, you know, a kind of concrete example

of that is the shift

we see in many areas of public policy. >> Mm-hm.

Towards focusing on the incentives that providers are offered for engaging

in certain kinds of behavior. >> Mm-hm.

>> And we have these wonderful words like incentivize, [LAUGH] and so forth.

And, and the alternative to that would be codes of professional conduct.

>> Mm-hm.

>> And professional ethics, you know, which people,

providers see themselves as having responsibilities to the community.

>> Yes.

>> Responsibilities to the profession, that their profession

comes with, tied to, a moral good. >> Interesting, yes.

>> So that my performance as a lawyer.

>> Yes.

>> As an educator is not too measured by how much the returns I make

for it, but rather by my conformity to a certain code of ethics and my realization.

That's the purposes that the profession is defined

around and, particularly you think about health is

defined around the, i mean the, physicians are

defined in terms of the value of health,

their lawyers are defined by value of justice.

>> Right.

>> And education in terms of the value of knowledge.

So when you try to defect my behavior by incentivizing me.

>> Right.

>> I actually may have become more of this ego.

>> Right, right. >> Especially than I

would have been before.

And that brings us to the idea that, what

do people count as part of their self interest?

>> Yes.

>> And that's going to be part of their identity.

>> Right, and that identity isn't just individual, isn't just isolated.

>> Right, we form our identities

through comparison of ourselves with others.

>> Right.

>> Through the social interactions that we engage in, and so forth.

>> And this is Benkler's big theme, right, is that,

that the mistake we make is to think that we

just layer on the social after the core individuality is there.

And core individuality as, you just

said, core individuality is constructed in relationship

and he likes to use the examples

in contemporary technology about Wikipedia, for example.

One of his favorite examples is that

cooperation can become part of one's ethos and

not and it goes all the way down.

It's not something that you can just layer on.

And, and, or, or try to maximize your individual good through

your being a lawyer, or being a, an editor of Wikipedia.

It's just, it's just, it's part of who you are, in relation to others.

>> Right, exactly.

And, and his idea, he argues along with many others that are

intellectual property laws in this country have become way out of whack.

>> Yes.

>> Because by creating these very strong property rights,

and ideas, and knowledge, and so on and so forth.

They wall people off from each other.

>> Yeah.

>> And the growth of culture and the growth of knowledge and so on

and so forth, is a function of the free flow of ideas and so forth.

>> Yes. >> You don't write something to Nova.

>> Right.

>> You are responding to the voices of your culture, of your tradition.

>> Yes.

>> And if you can't appropriate that, those ideas.

And transform them, you can't produce anything new.

>> Exactly.

>> And so, the whole idea behind

intellectual property laws is that it's supposed to

give people the incentive to come up with new ideas and so on and so forth.

>> Yeah.

>> But if you push it too far in that direction.

>> Right.

>> You actually undercut the growth of knowledge.

>> This is Hyde's theme as well, Louis Hyde's theme as well.

[COUGH] And we had when Professor Lawrence Lessig visit Wesleyan a few years ago

and I'm hoping to talk with him in the context of this class as well.

Of just, on just on this theme about how the emphasis on protecting the

individual actually can be an impoverishment both

of the cultural and of the individual, ultimately.

[LAUGH] >> Exactly right.

>> Ultimately.

In this course the you know, we're, we're, we're starting off with this, this,

this idea of a social good because it's, and we've chosen

themes that are not let me put it this way, particularist.

So we're going on next week to talk about, poverty

and how to, how to combat it, especially extreme poverty.

Then we'll

be talking about climate change and then we'll be talking about issues

around education, especially education and gender,

and then, you know, we've chosen these

large themes because I hope the students who are participating in the

class would not say, well I do not really care about climate change.

It is not of my business or I do not care about education.

It is not my business.

It seems like it is a human business. It is part of our social being.

>> Mm-hm.

>> That the, that we have to confront these issues

that, they're not something we can just separate ourselves from.

>> Yeah, well, you think about climate change; this

is very much a tragedy of the common situation.

>> Yes.

>> You've heard, and one proposal that's often put forward

to address it is a cap and trade system. >> Yes.

>> Cap and trade system, in effect, creates property rights

in the atmosphere. >> Yeah.

>> It's, so it's very much Lockian. >> Yeah.

>> Kind of thing in terms of what we were talking about before.

>> Yes.

>> Carbon tax, on the other hand, is what [LAUGH] you could

say as, well it's it, it, it's more of, of ruled by [UNKNOWN].

>> Yes.

>> But it's not I, I, I won't go down that road.

>> Yeah.

>> It's like it's more complicated. >> Yeah.

But that, it does you need a strong external authority.

I guess I, I.

>> You need some system of social organization.

>> Right.

>> To take care of it, and Austin's work depends heavily, for example,

upon the idea that, that the actions of people are visible to each other.

>> Yes.

>> Since climate change is a global problem.

>> Right.

We, there's no way of settling outside of some kind of

a systematic structure of authority that well generate rules that everybody

will follow.

But it doesn't have to be a, Leviathin, or a Hobbesian.

>> Right.

>> Kind of approach.

Because, since its in everyone's interest to follow

those rules, if everyone else is doing so.

If we could develop a structure through which the rules could be agreed.

>> Yes.

>> And, it's reasonable to think that that structure will

be effective, even if there's some free-riding that goes on.

>> Yeah, it's interesting in her work the,

she, she points out these, these, systems of communal management, and or

communal participation that preserves resources over

ti-, over long periods of time.

That works so well because of the kind of tradition of trust.

>> Mm.

>> And I guess one of the things we're trying to confront now is, how

do you jump-start that, or how do you

ignite traditions of trust without creating a Leviathan?

>> Mm-Hm.

>> To do it and, and

one of the themes, in this class will be how do we promote social good.

I mean, I'm, I'm, this is a class.

We're not asking people to, to become

Marxists or Liberals or Conservatives or Anarchists.

You know, we're not asking people to, to subscribe

to an ideology, but we are asking people to

think about how they can promote social good, how

they can promote an enrichment of the commons, I guess.

>> Yes, Yes.

>> In the language

we've been use today, using today and are there authors that

you teach or, or have been thinking about that give us any

indications or help about this notion of how can you promote

or add to the enrichment of the commons, of the social good?

>> A while ago we were talking about the conditions under which

people acting individualistically in terms of their own projects and self interests,

and I would like to use the words in a broad, things that they care about.

>> Things they care about.

>> Can produce optimal outcomes And in

situations in which it wont produce optimal outcome.

>> Right.

>> And, economists talk about the difference between these things.

It's the question of externalities. >> Right.

>> To the extent that my behavior

impacts you in ways that aren't consensual.

That you, do-, don't, don't involve your agreeing

to any effect. >> Right, yes.

>> Then the decentralized cancelled approaches are problematic.

>> Mm-hm.

>> And so the global warming example is the case in point.

Where as long as there are, people are free

to put carbon into the atmosphere the people who

put the carbon in the atmosphere are enjoying the

full benefits of the energy that they're producing, or the

revenues they get from selling that energy.

And the people, but they are not paying the full cost.

>> Right.

>> The costs have been spread out across the world.

And so, so here you clearly have to

move away from the decentralized kind of approach.

But when we think about the ways in which interests are related, rooted

in our identities and the way identities are rooted in our social lives.

In the structure of our social lives.

We can see that in addition to these

models of decentralized self interested market like things.

>> Mm-hm.

>> And coordinated kinds of activities either

through states, or through association, or communal arrangements.

We also see how people's conceptions of their own

good can be more or less tied to social goods.

>> Yes.

>> So that, to the extent, for example, that you see yourself as a citizen.

>> Mm-hm.

>> You view, say, the nonpayment of taxes differently.

>> Right.

>> From the way as you just see yourself as an adolestick individual.

>> Yeah.

>> Well it's concerns about your own consumption, by the way your.

>> Mm-hm.

>> Households consumption bundle. So to the extent that you see yourself

as a professional. >> Mm-hm.

>> Or as a doctor, or or educator.

You as, as opposed to a small business person, or

a person who's out, out to maximize their household income.

you'll, you'll, you'll see your interest differently

and then in acting in a self interested

way you'll also be acting in the way

that promotes the social good because you've incorporated.

>> Right.

>> The social good into your own identity.

>> So I think what we'll see, at least that I hope we'll

see in this class is that people who are studying with us

on concerning these large scale global challenges will begin to see how these

challenges are relevant to them as citizens of different parts of the world.

As, as activists, I think many people who are involved in, in

the Social Goods Summit see themselves as activists, see themselves as trying

to make a positive difference in the world.

And not just before their own consumption bundle.

[LAUGH] But because they see themselves as enwebbed in a world that faces

extraordinarily dangerous consequences because of our pursuit of

particular self interest or because of our pursuit of

policies that lead to radical inequality.

And one of the things we're trying to do

in the class, and, and this is really an experiment.

At least for my per-, perspective, is to

encourage the students to think about very specific,

and I would imagine, small scale things they

can do that would contribute to the social good.

>> Mm-hm.

>> To, to, and to try to write briefly about that,

and what that might be.

What kinds of alliances they create, what kind of specific actions they create.

That if you will, return something to the commons

or, or, re-, replenish the social good to some extent.

and, and I think the, the the first thing we have to do is to have

some shared sense of what the facts are. So we're going to be talking

in regard to poverty next week, about what do we know about extreme poverty?

What are some of the, you know, what do the economists tell us?

What, what are some of the best appraisals of the issue

in contemporary social science, and then the second part, which I

guess relates back to this notion of relationship or enwebbing, is why you

should care? >> Mm-hm.

>> You know?

>> Mm-hm.

>> If you're, if you're watching this class, you may not

actually, chances are you're not suffering from extreme poverty [LAUGH], you know?

You have a good internet connection, you know about Coursera, you're interested in,

and you have access to these materials you are not struggling just to survive.

But why should you care about extreme poverty?

>> Right.

>> And then the third thing is what, what might you do, not

that we're going to solve extreme poverty in this class, but what might

you do that would be positive? >> Right.

>> That would give back to this commons.

>> Right that's, that's really interesting and one thing,

one kind of social science research I might just mention.

>> Yes. >> Is the Wilkinson and Pickett.

>> Mm-hm.

>> Work and it has a kind of an odd

title of The Spirit Level, but they look at inequality and

measures of social well-being. Among rich countries.

>> Mm-hm.

>> And they begin with the observation, which has been confirmed over and

over again, that measures of subjective

well-being go up quite quickly with income.

>> Yes.

>> But then after you've escaped poverty it really flattens out.

>> Yes. >> And this,

so it's also true at the, at the national level as well.

Among countries that are relatively rich.

There isn't much correlation between how rich they are.

>> How happy they are.

[LAUGH]

>> And people's subjective measures of well being.

What's really remarkable, is that among the countries that are

relatively rich, there is a very high level of correlation

between equality and bene-, good social outcomes.

>> Huh.

>> They test this looking at OECD

nations, the, the, the club of rich countries.

>> Yes.

>> And they also tested looking within the

United States, the 50 states of the United States.

And so they look at these, how many

of, what proportion of your population is in prison.

>> Mm-hm.

>> And what, how much inequality is there?

>> Right. >> What proportions of your

population commits suicide? >> Right.

>> That would show inequality. >> Yeah.

And it's remarkable.

Over and over and over again, they find

that equality is associated with better outcomes for everybody.

>> Hm.

>> Why should you care?

Well, because if you live in a world with a

more equal society, you're likely to have a better life.

>> Yes.

>> Because living in a less equal society is going to

give you a higher level of material well being, maybe.

If you're at the top. [LAUGH]

>> If you're at the top, yeah.

>> But what's that going to do for you in terms of,

of real well being, because the law of diminishing returns sets in.

>> That's right.

Way to bring our conversation to a close the, the,

the wager of this class is to by getting some key facts out there.

By sharing stories and by sharing strategies for dealing

with these global challenges, we'll have a sense of participation in

a community and, and a sense

of mitigating at least trying to mitigate some of the nefarious effects

of, of, of inequality, of the depletion of the commons

of the perpetuation of on equal access

to education, that increasing awareness, and giving people tools for

action will give us a sense, perhaps of, of greater

well being, but more importantly, of greater capacity to initiate change.

>> And more control over our, the conditions of our collective existence.

>> Yeah.

>> I mean, this is, politics is often thought of as as a struggle for power.

>> Yeah. >> Where everybody is.

>> Yeah.

>> Out to get, Lasswell said, the title of

his famous book, Politics, Who Gets What, When, and How.

>> Right. [LAUGH]

>> But really, the political is the sphere where

we can separate ourselves from what's going on in

our society and see how we are interacting in

ways that may be producing outcomes that we don't want.

And then trying to take that into account and restructure the way we

do things so that we can create outcomes that we, that we do want.

And so have more control over our, our lives as, as individuals.

But that can only be done cooperatively.

>> Yes.

Well, Professor Donald Moon, thank you so much for this conversation.

>> Pleasure.

>> Really fun to do and I, I look forward

to, more, more discussions, over the course of the semester.

Thank you. >> Excellent,

thank you.

Reciprocity and Giving Back to the Commons

How to Change the World

与讲师见面