Understanding the commons

[cprise]

Taken from http://friendsofthecommons.org/understanding/index.html


WHAT IS THE COMMONS?
On this web site, we use the terms commons, common assets, common property and common wealth. They all refer to the same thing in slightly different ways.

Commons is the generic term. It embraces all the creations of nature and society that we inherit jointly and freely, and hold in trust for future generations.

Common assets are those parts of the commons that have a value in the market. Radio airwaves are a common asset, as are timber and minerals on public lands. So, increasingly, are air and water.

Common property refers to a class of human-made rights that lies somewhere between private property and state property. Examples include conservation easements held by land trusts, Alaskans’ right to dividends from the Alaska Permanent Fund, and everyone’s right to waterfront access.

Common wealth refers to the monetary and non-monetary value of the commons in supporting life and well-being. Like stockholders’ equity in a corporation, it may increase or decrease from year to year depending on how well the commons is managed.

[soothsayer]

1. I live in the commonwealth of VA

so where's my share???

[soothsayer]

2. I was thinking about the law of the commons today while mowing my lawn

Wondering could I dump my clippings at the curb, but then thought what if everyone else did it too, wouldn't it be a mess, except they don't, so couldn't I? Law of the commons sez for instance if the land can support 1000 cattle, each of 10 families could have a hundred cattle. But I figure not everyone has a hundred, so I think I'll put 150, but then EVERYONE puts a few more cattle on, you exceed the number of cattle the land can support.

THe basic idea is...trust no one, cuz folks will cheat! Or something.

[cprise]

3. That is the libertarian POV

...and leads to the conclusion that everything must be privatized to prevent "tragedy" of the commons.

Funny... I don't see a pattern of people digging up public parks to raise their own private vegetable gardens. We have regulation for that. And if you don't want cheating, then pay attention to what's going on in your community.

[soothsayer]

4. Hey, who knew? thanks! n/t

[alarimer]

6. Hardin's conclusion

was not that everything be privatized. He suggested that as far as real estate goes, a system of private property with inheritance is what we use because we haven't found anything else that works as well. He was mostly talking about overpopulation in that paper. "Freedom to breed brings ruin to all." But his metaphor has been extended to a lot of things. I think that communal or goverment ownership,rather than private ownership, is the usual case in natural resources at least, which is why no one digs up the park. That and the fact that they will be arrested if they do. Here is the original article by Hardin from around 1968 I think.

http://dieoff.com/page95.htm


Edit: can't type

[alarimer]

5. That is why natural resources are held in trust

and regulated. The tragedy of the commons is a famous paper written by Garrett Hardin. This model has been applied to fisheries because (as we have seen) of the tendency of users to grab as much of the resource as they can. Hardin's suggestion was either government or collective ownership of the resource. In fact, most natural resources like fish and wildlife are held "in trust" for all the people to use or enjoy. "Mutual coercion mutually agrees upon". So states and the feds set up systems to allocate those resources (licenses, bag limits, etc). One could argue that in fisheries management this has not worked terribly well as most fisheries are currently considered overfished. There have been some success stories, mainly through limiting the number of commercial fishing licenses sold or systems in which an individual is allocated a "share" of the available catch rather than setting a total quota and having a sort of derby until the quota is met (see Alaskan halibut fisheries for example).