I have no intention of defending Hardin as I'm not informed of his personal beliefs, but this article screams of ad hominem. He might have been a terrible perso

I have no intention of defending Hardin as I'm not informed of his personal beliefs, but this article screams of ad hominem. He might have been a terrible person but it conflates his personal failings with the idea of the tragedy of the commons as if to discredit the idea. And while maybe the British commons for land might have had more nuance than his original article let on, it doesn't mean there aren't other key examples showing the idea has validity. For example, fisheries are a great example. In the absence of well defined property rights to catch limited numbers of fish (and effective enforcement mechanisms), we see rampant overfishing in the world. In places with effective cap and trade schemes for fisheries, we actually see healthy, robust ecosystems. Alaska is the best example but there are many other shining examples compared to the unregulated and unenforced commons of the open ocean where Chinese fishing vessels are systematically destroying the commons. Let's not conflate the idea with the man, and instead let the idea stand/fall on its own merits.. It's a logical fallacy otherwise.