Will of the Commons Thelema and the Tragedy of the Commons

¹Originally part of a social media conversation in 2018. Updated with new material and footnotes in 2024.Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

In 1968, the xenophobic, eugenics proponent Garrett Hardin wrote his now-famous article in Science magazine, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” in which he suggested a world racing toward overpopulation and unrestrained competition for common resources would eliminate different groups of the planet’s population to live in harmony. While subsequent examinations of Hardin’s premise have determined he was working from several erroneous assumptions about the commons, governance, and even the free-rider problem itself, the tragedy of the commons has entered our economic nomenclature as a conceit by which we can examine the governance of shared resources.²Brett M. Frischmann, Alain Marciano, and Giovanni B. Ramello, “Retrospectives: Tragedy of the Commons after 50 Years.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 33, no. 4 (2019), 211-228. doi:10.1257/jep.33.4.211.

Several years ago, a Facebook conversation took place in which the challenge was put forth to approach the tragedy of the commons from the perspective of the Law of Thelema. It was a lively discussion and educational all around. Revisiting that discussion, in light of further thoughts, leads to some additional conclusions about how Thelema addresses the issue of shared resources. It’s a complicated subject, and this is merely a brief coverage of some ideas surrounding it, but it’s a start in opening the door to further discussions on Applied Thelema.

Summary of the Tragedy

Hardin’s true intent was not to promote any kind of actual economic policy change but to backdoor population control (eugenics) stating, “It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy”³Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162, no. 3859 (December 1968): 1243. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859. and eventually concluding, “‘Freedom is the recognition of necessity’—and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed.”⁴Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” 1248 (emphasis mine).

It is not my intention to dismantle Hardin’s thesis. That has been done by others with more expertise in such matters—I’m a theologian and philosopher, not an economist—but it is the discourse of shared resources highlighted by the tragedy of the commons that provides the basis of an interesting discussion in relation to the Law of Thelema.

Originally, one of our discussion participants suggested Hardin’s tragedy of the commons could be summed up as “individual users of a common resource, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good.” This is as good a summary as any.

Common Resources

Regardless of Hardin’s original mischaracterization of the ‘commons,’ we do live on a planet on which there are shared resources among the population that can either be depleted with use without replenishment or be damaged through misuse without proper stewardship. Whether we bring up the subject of deforestation or climate change or fishing grounds or drilling for oil or water, this concept of common use⁵For the sake of brevity, I am only addressing common-pool resources defined as ‘non-excludable, rivalrous resources,’ examples of which include fishing stocks, timber harvesting, groundwater, public grazing land, etc. We could discuss non-excludable, rivalrous resources (or ‘public goods’), but that would spin into needless complications that can be addressed another time and there isn’t much difference in the conclusions other than some “fuzzy-line” considerations. goes beyond spouting off “Do what thou wilt” and calling it a day. The ideology pushing the radicalization of individualism (hyper-individualism) and suggesting ‘every man and every woman is an island’ fails on the face of it because it lacks the connective tissue even at a metaphysical level to provide characteristics and definition to what ‘individual’ means. In the end, those who subscribe to such an ideology end up functioning on a level of psychosis or fascism or both.

Part of Hardin’s assumptions was the “free-rider problem” would characteristically leave our communities, and by extension our planet, worse off than it had been previously.⁶Of course, those of us who have any kind of psychological background know one of the largest solutions to the free-rider problem is religion. Social kinship transfers (or extends) the solution for this particular problem from the nuclear family to an extended social family, in this case, a religious family. For whatever reason, Hardin did not explore this angle in his thesis on the commons. He believed people must be coerced into behaving toward a common good. His target was overpopulation and the overextended use of common resources of the planet. He believed that scarcity of common resources was a problem that would end the human race if not addressed quickly. One of his most quoted lines was “the world available to the terrestrial population is finite.”⁷Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” 1243.

Self-Interest

Hardin’s solution to this resource problem was overt government coercion even though based on an inaccurately formed argument about how the ‘commons’ were adjudicated in practice. Subsequent examinations of common resource use found human behavior trended toward “individual attributes” of trust, reciprocity, and the use of reputation⁸These “individual attributes” are defined in Frischmann, “Retrospectives,” 219:
Trust: “the expectations individuals have about others’ behavior”;
Reciprocity: “the norms individuals learn from socialization and life’s experiences”;
Reputation: “identities individuals create that project their intentions and norms”.
[Frischmann is quoting: Elinor Ostrom, “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997.” American Political Science Review 92, no. 1 (1998), 14. doi:10.2307/2585925.] to work through social conflict.⁹Frischmann, “Retrospectives,” 219.

These individual attributes are important as part of any socio-political examination, especially when we take into consideration the Law of Thelema and its metaphysical construction, because they form the bedrock of interactions between individuals whether they exist over a fence or within a lodge or between neighboring countries. We call this interpersonal and intercommunal action, politics.¹⁰Of course, politics is a tainted subject in Thelemic circles, and has been for decades. Many wish the Law of Thelema to validate their particular and personal flavor of politics in pursuit of an ideological battle of wits and social currency. But if we believe Thelema revolutionizes “philosophy, religion, ethics and the whole nature of Man” [Aleister Crowley. Magick: Liber ABA (Weiser Books, 1997), 429.], then this must include a revolution in politics as well and the standard ideas of politics cannot stand. This doesn’t mean that some ideas of classical and/or current politics cannot carry over, but they must be reexamined, reframed, and reworked to resonate with the Law of Thelema.

To be more precise, politics is the collective decision-making process of two or more individuals joined together within a particular social construct (i.e., a nation, state, society, organization, tribe, family, etc). Politics comes to us, ultimately, from a conjoining of words translating loosely to ‘city of citizens.’ In other words, politics is the function of a group of individuals within defined borders. It doesn’t matter if your borders are between two sovereign nations of millions of people or the fence between you and your neighbors. The decision-making process that goes on to elucidate the terms of engagement over those borders and fences is politics.

While I’m not going to pontificate an entire treatise on Thelemic philosophy in this essay, it is sufficient to suggest Thelemic politics is laid out for us through a series of hierological clues in the Book of the Law. It offers a framework of social responsibility that insists on an integrated and harmonious approach to social interactions—“Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed!” [AL 2.59]. A forthcoming examination of United Kingdom Theology will dig deeper into these aspects of Kingship across all aspects of this model toward an integral Thelemic worldview. However, it should be noted there is no injunction or mandate within the Book of the Law that supports isolationism.

Hardin felt personal self-interest would take over and it would be a free-for-all of ruin for shared resources. In fact, Hardin went so far as to outright state it was sensible for rational individuals to overuse resources for themselves when they could benefit from doing so.¹¹Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” 1244. Aside from the fact that human beings are far from inherently rational creatures, the idea that he alleged it was sensible to overuse shared resources without the slightest attempt at communication and cooperation just on the face of it is absurd. Granted, I’m assuming individuals here for the moment and not corporate conglomerates swooping with a team of bloodsucking lawyers, each lacking anything resembling a conscience.

What about this whole idea of “acting independently according to their own self-interest,” in the first place? That is part of the opening of our thesis as to the tragedy.

First, I think it is important to establish that we are operating within the sphere of politics. We are not examining individuals divorced from a social context. So this idea an individual is beholden to no-one else doesn’t work here.

Some Thelemites love to whip out their ‘every man and every woman is an island’ speeches when they want to pretend they are a special kind of hyper-individualist snowflake ‘doing their Will’ and ‘no other can say nay.’ Then they will pull out Crowley’s stupidity in his Commentaries about “Collision is the only crime in the cosmos”¹²Aleister Crowley, The Law is for All: The Authorized Popular Commentary on Liber AL vel Legis sub figurâ CCXX, the Book of the Law (New Falcon Publications, 1996), 53. and how others should just get out of their way while forgetting that he also pontificated on the nobility of rape, murder, and lawyers via the same allusion of colliding galaxies a mere ten verses previously.

Second, there are still Thelemites today who seem to believe that individuals are entirely independent of each other and have the ability to act “according to their own self-interest” without consequence, that there is no connection between an individual and a community (or that no such a connection exists in the Book of the Law—though they’re wrong), and that being self-centered is the nature of Thelema as we are each the center of the universe through a wicked little misunderstanding of a line out of Crowley’s profound epistle on ethics, “Duty.”¹³The most general ontological concept in Thelema is the idea of Nuit as “the circumference that is nowhere” and Hadit as “the center that is everywhere.” This is not as strange as it might seem at first glance, though it is often the justification of Thelemites “being the center of the universe.” I have often wondered how many people actually understand how insignificant the center of the universe really is—and especially one that “is everywhere”—when misusing such a metaphor. [As an aside, the “center of the universe” concept found in “Duty” isn’t about being self-centered, but being self-referential. It’s a psychological concept, not an ontological one.]

While there is certainly an element of self-interest involved with Thelema—and we can address the ontological dynamics of participation and resistance another time—the ethical implications of the Law of Thelema are quite clear that no individual acts independently of another.¹⁴“The Great Kingdom is Heaven, with each star as an unit,” Crowley writes in his Commentaries. [Aleister Crowley, The Law is for All, 25.] And from this, we can start to lay the foundation for the United Kingdom Theology model, but see already each star is part of a larger whole (a holon) of the Kingdom and necessary to the function of that whole. Our sense of self-interest must take into consideration the needs of others within our sphere of influence.¹⁵However, don’t be misled by those who give you some kind of weird Christian idea of morality here. Self-interest in Thelema is far more akin to selfishness as defined via Objectivism than some kind of narcissistic escapism. (See note 13above.)

One’s self-interest, when guided by the Law of Thelema, does not provide a fog of justification to live in a self-contained, isolated bubble. It demands we take into consideration all other influences—at the risk of over-complexity here—to our Khu.¹⁶The Khu could be defined, for simplicity’s sake, as the personality of the individual, the veils of manifestation or experience. The Khu is the aspect we explore through the Great Work, it is that through which we dig and uncover in our personal archeology of authenticity. To violate another, to “behave contrary to the common good” (as defined in this ‘tragedy’) in a manner that is destructive both to others and self, would be to violate our own self-interest in the first place.

This is not to insist or assert any doctrine of self-sacrifice, to demand that one “lay down their life for another” in some sacrificial manner. However, because we do not (existentially) exist in a vacuum, individuality only exists relationally; therefore, self-interest also exists relationally, i.e., self-interest, in a Thelemic sense, is to grasp that our own well-being is dependent upon the reciprocal well-being of others in our orbit. While I would personally suggest this includes a mutual and affective sense of engagement between individuals, I would at least assert Thelemic self-interest is solidly grounded in basic cognitive empathy.¹⁷This is an intellectual empathy rather than affective (emotional) empathy. It is the baseline for compassion (“the vice of kings” [AL 2.21]) which requires cognitive but not necessarily affective empathy. It is the detached ability to share the perspective of another which is a requirement for cooperation and collaboration.

Common Good

But what of this idea of “individual users of a common resource [that] behave contrary to the common good”?

Recognizing the original tragedy of the commons poorly defined the common good as a resource problem to be solved by reducing the population via coercion rather than examining other means of collaborative governance, a world in which there is even a common good at all has to be addressed through an application of the Law of Thelema. As mentioned earlier, looking solely at common-pool resources as the basis of our examination of shared resources here, the common good is that which benefits each of us in the use of these resources.

Up front, it has to be noted, that there is no manner by which all individuals may equally share in these resources, so we have to ensure some kind of equitable understanding both of their use and of their preservation. What are the principles in play? Are we able to govern these resources in such a manner that preserves them but also allows their use with the least amount of restriction for each individual? Is there a ‘will of the commons’ in play as well?

First—and I admit while I accept this concept, I struggle with defending it; but I present it for consideration nonetheless—Crowley believed more than just individuals had True Wills. Communities, companies, and countries; animals, objects, and goods; all these had Wills that could be discovered and exercised, abused and abased from their natural course and use. This means such macro-concepts could be restricted by others against their Will and misuse would be a violation of the Law of Thelema.

Second, we have what is known as ‘the scale of Nature.’ We certainly have the use of the environment, broadly defined, as we see fit. We do not begrudge the fisherman who goes out in the morning to cast his line for dinner. But what about the daily (or seasonal) commercial fishing that depletes the tuna population to the point of collapse? What about recreational fishing on top of that? How do we regulate that for the preservation of tuna? Do we care about tuna? Or is there a hierarchy of a “food chain” in which we, as humans, have more ‘right’ to eat tuna than a tuna has to live? Is there a balance between the two?

The Law of Thelema provides absolutely for the freedom of action, but it also ensures there is no freedom from the consequences of action. The late J. Daniel Gunther proudly, and erroneously, boasted the Law of Thelema denied determinism.¹⁸“The philosophy of determinism […] is completely antithetical to the Law of Thelema.” [J. Daniel Gunther, Initiation in the Aeon of the Child: The Inward Journey. Ibis Press, 2014. Apple Books.] He fundamentally misunderstood the basic nature of cause and effect. Thelema is solidly grounded in determinism. It absolutely declares an action will have an effect, a consequence, and we must accept those consequences in order to declare our own freedom to act.

I think this falls squarely under the section in “Duty” where Crowley writes quite eloquently, “It is a violation of the Law of Thelema to abuse the natural qualities of any animal or object by diverting it from its proper function, as determined by consideration of its history and structure.”¹⁹Aleister Crowley, “Duty. A Note on the Chief Rules of Practical Conduct to be Observed by Those who Accept the Law of Thelema.” In The Revival of Magick and Other Essays. New Falcon Publications, 1998, 143. The fundamental approach to the tragedy of the commons is based on the principle of the natural qualities of an object being diverted from its proper function, e.g., a pasture overgrazed, as in the original Hardin thesis, or “when wanton deforestation has ruined a climate or a soil, or as when the importation of rabbits for a cheap supply of food has created a plague.”²⁰Crowley, “Duty,” 143.

The example in our original discussion, years ago, was deforestation and how one group (“the rich”) goes in, wrecks the environment, and pulls out with the profits leaving the other group (“the poor”) holding the bag.

I really like this because it’s similar to the illustration Crowley himself uses in “Duty.” My response was the infraction against the Law, as Crowley would call it, does not rest solely on “the poor” here. While that is the most obvious vexation within the situation, and it may be (depending on circumstances) the most immediate result of the situation, it is not the ultimate result of such actions.

Eventually, deforestation will result in other consequences shared by everyone, not merely “the poor.” Just because it does not catch up to “the rich” in a manner (or “soon enough” for those playing moral gotcha games) that soothes the moral outrage of a few is no reason to ignore the consequences as a whole. The planetary consequences of deforestation are seen clearly in the atmospheric changes that affect the reduction of carbon which drives climate change, it increases pollution through less overall photosynthesis taking place on our planet, increases soil erosion that protects our land from violent weather—like what just happened in Eastern United States—it reduces our overall biodiversity, and it affects our water cycle. These are just a few global effects of deforestation. Ultimately, the global effects of just this one element of environmental abuse could lead to “the rich” losing their ski slopes and pristine water resorts. While you can see me over here crying a river about that—if you missed the sarcasm, try harder—my point is this isn’t a problem we can merely hand-wave off to “the poor” and call it a day.

One could suggest those “profits” will create a buffer of privilege for “the rich” to enjoy a life longer than “the poor” after they have destroyed the environment. But I submit the consequences of a destroyed planet do not care about those profits in the end. Elon Musk isn’t putting anyone on Mars anytime soon. The so-called “rich” are facing the same consequences as “the poor” even if they are drinking champagne while dying from emphysema due to breathing the same polluted air.

Ultimately, as the Law of Thelema states, we are all bound to each other both metaphysically and ethically, and therefore politically, and that comes with certainly responsibilities. Where Thelema suggests ethics may be framed as personal accountability, it also suggests politics may be framed as social responsibility. Granted, this opens the door for more questions and further discussion: and it should. I mean for it to do so.

Third—and this is where we hit politics again—Crowley writes, “the aim of the legislature must be to secure the amplest freedom for each individual in the state.”²¹Crowley, “Duty,” 141. I haven’t provided any kind of thoughts on what a Thelemic government might look like here, and I won’t, but I think it is well within the purview of a functional government to regulate any activity of human affairs that has an empirically measurable effect on the population, e.g., pollution, groundwater, toxic waste, fishing grounds, etc. These deal with “the commons” or shared resources invariably damaged through misuse by individuals without regard for others on a larger scale. This is a tricky line, to be sure, when it comes to a larger force [government] placing restraints [discipline] on a population.

But more to the point, it is the collaborative stewardship of individuals working in harmony with these resources, to ensure the ‘natural qualities of any animal or object [are used within] its proper function’ even if that means a temporary depletion within reasonable bounds with a plan for conservation and replenishment of those resources to ensure stability and vitality of the ecosystem itself and continuity for future generations. Yes, I think the government can step in, but I don’t think it should have to do so in a reasonable society based on the Law of Thelema. If we assume ‘the commons’ has a Will, then we have to take that into consideration that its Will is to exist within its natural qualities and proper function.

The underlying socio-political assumption of “Duty” is one of the “general welfare of the race being necessary in many respects to your own, that well-being, like your own, principally a function of the intelligent and wise observance of the Law of Thelema, it is of the very first importance to you that every individual should accept frankly that Law, and strictly govern himself in full accordance therewith.”²²Crowley, “Duty,” 140–141. While I would love to believe even Thelemites are capable of a “intelligent and wise observance of the Law of Thelema,” experience tells me otherwise. To think the rest of humanity is capable of such is going to take more than a little red book and some Crowleyan mumblerap. It’s certainly going to take more than some YouTube videos about “magick.”

We are a far cry from the general acceptance of the Law of Thelema as expected in the latter sections of “Duty.” Like most concepts, the issue of critical mass comes into play. Promulgation of the Law of Thelema is currently being done through the memefication of prooftexting Crowley and pushing “magick as a mindset” rather than seeing the practical applications of the Law in the world. All of what Crowley proposed, though, would have to begin more on a local level and then begin to circulate higher in the political field, i.e., from community to county/territory to city to state to nation. In short, it is exactly how grassroots movements work.²³So far, we’ve just been too stupid and self-absorbed to figure it out in 100 years while the Heritage Foundation changed the face of government policy and the Supreme Court in a mere 51 years, and they started with 3 people.

But I think it is worth noting that “Duty” assumes a civil responsibility toward others even if only in the sense of offering the Law of Thelema as the panacea for the overall human condition regardless of any one person’s acceptance of the Law. And, to no surprise to anyone I’m sure, I agree with him.

Love is the law, love under will.