3 ms·

Your article says Hardins theory only works if their is no such thing as ownership. A commons is a piece of land supposedly used commonly and not owned by anyo

Your article says Hardins theory only works if their is no such thing as ownership. A commons is a piece of land supposedly used commonly and not owned by anyone. So Hardins theory is addressing tthings like the ocean and the air. This article might as well be rebutting the theory of gravity because it only applies to objects with mass.

iainmerrick 9y ago
So Hardins theory is addressing tthings like the ocean and the air. No, Hardin himself intended his theory to address land usage; it's this article that argues the theory doesn't actually work properly in that context.
- crimsonalucard 9y ago
  iainmerrick. You are completely and utterly incorrect. Read hardins original article. Hardin is addressing Everything that is "common." I can prove it to you. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full This is the original article by Hardin. Ctrl-F oceans. Then Ctrl-F pollution. You will see that Hardin directly references pollution and oceans as commons. If you read the entire article you will see that he talks about population control more than he talks about land.
  - crimsonalucard 9y ago
    Actually to be honest. Hardins article is beautiful. It addresses the theory of the commons in its entirety and it also addresses putting the commons under regulation. The writing, scope and sophistication to the topic is wider in Hardins original article. The rebuttal you've submitted is actually not well done, it's almost as if the author (and yourself as well) didn't read Hardins original article in its entirety.
    - iainmerrick 9y ago
      I agree, the Hardin article is terrific. There are at least three categories, not just two (as Hardin clearly explains): common ownership, nationalized ownership, and private ownership. The Monbiot article argues that common ownership doesn't necessarily mean a destructive free-for-all; often the people who actually live in a certain land do a good job of looking after it. As for private ownership, free market fans tend to assume this is the best approach, but individual owners aren't always incentivized to make the best long-term use of land. I don't think Monbiot is entirely against Hardin, he's saying more that Hardin is being misread as a justification for private ownership of land only. (I don't think Hardin takes a position on private vs nationalized; he's only concerned with commons vs owned.)

iainmerrick 9y ago

So Hardins theory is addressing tthings like the ocean and the air. No, Hardin himself intended his theory to address land usage; it's this article that argues the theory doesn't actually work properly in that context.

crimsonalucard 9y ago
iainmerrick. You are completely and utterly incorrect. Read hardins original article. Hardin is addressing Everything that is "common." I can prove it to you. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full This is the original article by Hardin. Ctrl-F oceans. Then Ctrl-F pollution. You will see that Hardin directly references pollution and oceans as commons. If you read the entire article you will see that he talks about population control more than he talks about land.
- crimsonalucard 9y ago
  Actually to be honest. Hardins article is beautiful. It addresses the theory of the commons in its entirety and it also addresses putting the commons under regulation. The writing, scope and sophistication to the topic is wider in Hardins original article. The rebuttal you've submitted is actually not well done, it's almost as if the author (and yourself as well) didn't read Hardins original article in its entirety.
  - iainmerrick 9y ago
    I agree, the Hardin article is terrific. There are at least three categories, not just two (as Hardin clearly explains): common ownership, nationalized ownership, and private ownership. The Monbiot article argues that common ownership doesn't necessarily mean a destructive free-for-all; often the people who actually live in a certain land do a good job of looking after it. As for private ownership, free market fans tend to assume this is the best approach, but individual owners aren't always incentivized to make the best long-term use of land. I don't think Monbiot is entirely against Hardin, he's saying more that Hardin is being misread as a justification for private ownership of land only. (I don't think Hardin takes a position on private vs nationalized; he's only concerned with commons vs owned.)