2 ms·

Tragedy of the commons is from a story that was made up. There is zero evidence that shared ownership causes such a tragedy. In fact, the opposite is shown, tha

by mempko 8y ago

Tragedy of the commons is from a story that was made up. There is zero evidence that shared ownership causes such a tragedy. In fact, the opposite is shown, that no shared ownership causes tragedy. The problem with overfishing, for example, is not that the ocean is a commons, it's that it is specifically NOT a commons. Everyone owning something is not the same as nobody owning something because commons usually means cooperation vs competition.

wahern 8y ago
Commons relates to access, not ownership. Ownership relates to property and the sine qua non of property is ability to exclude. Everybody owning something is a non-sense statement in the context of public policy. As both a legal and practical matter public property is owned by specific governmental institutions so that access can be efficiently controlled. Tragedy of the Commons describes the exact situation where people have unfettered access to exploit a resource, capable of deriving a personal benefit to the detriment of everybody else; and specifically such that exploitation of the resource produces significantly less social benefit than if access were limited. It doesn't matter if 99% of people are conscientious and abstain from unfairly exploiting the resource because of a cultural sense of transitive "ownership" as a citizen or human. The laws aren't for the 99%, they're for the subgroup of people willing to subvert the norm for personal gain (and to be fair everybody has been and regularly is a member of that subgroup at some point).
- mempko 8y ago
  Commons is about ownership AND access. It is owned in common. The "tragedy of the commons" is a fictional story not based on any evidence. It was made up like a fairy tale. Things held in common certainly have rules which are either explicit or implicit. The only times something like the "tragedy of the commons" occurs is when private enterprise gets involved and the perverse incentives demand exploitation. And of course the resources exploited are explicitly NOT commons because it's lawless.

by mempko 8y ago

wahern 8y ago

Commons relates to access, not ownership. Ownership relates to property and the sine qua non of property is ability to exclude. Everybody owning something is a non-sense statement in the context of public policy. As both a legal and practical matter public property is owned by specific governmental institutions so that access can be efficiently controlled. Tragedy of the Commons describes the exact situation where people have unfettered access to exploit a resource, capable of deriving a personal benefit to the detriment of everybody else; and specifically such that exploitation of the resource produces significantly less social benefit than if access were limited. It doesn't matter if 99% of people are conscientious and abstain from unfairly exploiting the resource because of a cultural sense of transitive "ownership" as a citizen or human. The laws aren't for the 99%, they're for the subgroup of people willing to subvert the norm for personal gain (and to be fair everybody has been and regularly is a member of that subgroup at some point).

mempko 8y ago
Commons is about ownership AND access. It is owned in common. The "tragedy of the commons" is a fictional story not based on any evidence. It was made up like a fairy tale. Things held in common certainly have rules which are either explicit or implicit. The only times something like the "tragedy of the commons" occurs is when private enterprise gets involved and the perverse incentives demand exploitation. And of course the resources exploited are explicitly NOT commons because it's lawless.