3 ms·
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 regu
by 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 agoI 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.)