What is the Tragedy of the Commons?

Unfortunately, there are strong incentives for people to exploit these resources when they are held in common by everyone. As Prof. Sean Mulholland at Stonehill College explains, the 'tragedy of the commons' occurs when individuals acting independently end up depleting shared resources, such as fisheries or pastureland. Prof. Mulholland discusses two potential solutions to this problem: public ownership, where the property is owned and administered by the government, and private ownership. He discusses the strengths and weaknesses to each approach and some key considerations for determining which institutions best protect useful resources.

SUBSCRIBE:

FOLLOW US:

LEARN LIBERTY

[SleuthySloth]

Hey thanks, now I don't have to read the article I was assigned.

[hannahsandbananas]

Well thanks for helping me study what my prof made so difficult to understand! 

[LearnLiberty]

Without *ownership*, resources die out. It really does become a tragedy!

#economics #liberty #property #ownership  
#tragedyofthecommons  

[gwlyons]

It's "quite common" in areas that are already overtaken by western ideologies, yet it rarely (I can think of maybe Easter Island--and that's just a guess!) happens in areas where people live in relationship of the land, where they depend on the land to live. The "strong incentives" to exploit these lands only comes from Western ideologies and is a complete red herring.

[Mablak]

A. The current federal minimum is $7.25, but in addition, states impose their own minimum, Walmart isn't paying anywhere near twice what they have to. An average worker at Walmart starts at around $8, and only works up to the $10 range, (or if they'd started at about $9 the $12 range) over the course of 5 or more years.

B. One study has shown it would only cost the average shopper an extra 46 cents per visit to reach a $12 minimum at Walmart, not much of a burden.

[jackmcslay]

We have a limited time on earth, but companies don't. Whenever someone retires from a company, there will always be someone in their 20s worried about the future of the company.

[jshanmpleystampie]

This is very helpful for my biology Final Exam!!

[cftytrthnbv]

I don't think he is saying you should privatize everything, just certain things. For example you might privatize a pond but you would have public ownership of something like a rainforest.

[SangoProductions]

I was just about to comment on that. Government's original role in our Democracy was nothing more than to provide services that nothing else could do and make a profit (I.E. fix roads, or resolve forest fires).
A private organization would have monetised the forest, either by industrialising it or preventing people from freely experiencing it (costing the viewers money, for example), because they DO suffer the cost of their actions.

[Wyattinmnk]

In my neighborhood there is a Home Owner's Association that maintains several paths and parks. Not every community member values them equally. They are vandalized and treated very poorly some of the community members. But none of them bear much of the costs for their actions. So even though they benefit from the maintenance and the quality of the paths and parks, they still treat them poorly.

[Morocco_Mo]

Agreed with the top two comments, there are people out there who care about the community and will create something that will benefit themself and others around him simply because it's going to better everyone's lives in the future.

[PanEtRosa]

This problem is why consensus is being increasingly adopted. It holds all the stakeholders accountable to the group and provides a level structure for negotiating right and need to access. C.T. Lawrence Butler's "Consensus for Cities" provides good models for scaling the process up, so that accountability and responsibility are not restricted to the immediate group. This way, an isolated group can be held accountable to worldwide stakeholders, i.e. no one could overconsume at others' expense.

[ajbcx]

few people are moral, but many people know how to benefit themselves.

[ParadoxPerspective]

The idea of privatization assumes maximum profit incentive. If I own the pond, and the pond is valuable because it has fish, then it is in my best interest to make sure that I fish sustainably, or else I will only profit for one periodical while the resource lasts.

the same principle applies to real-world scenarios where the companies that log trees over vast scapes of land also plant trees because it is in their profit-motivated interests.

But you're right, they could be bad businessmen.

[Teadon]

The inherit problem with maximum profit incentive is that it doesn't take into account how much, lets say, a forest are worth but how much a certain part of that forest is worth to be exploited. Also one should consider the fact that the forest is valued differently. And even though it might be true that a businessman might value his fish it doesn't say that he's able to take care of them and sustain a healthy population. Often markets are unable to when one look on other similar examples.

[gben]

True. I empathize with that, which is why I'm not hardcore Libertarian like I used to be

Still, using bold political action and the force of government is not the (primary) answer to these problems. It must start with individuals. If you see a need not being met, then fulfill it (if you can).

We need to be concerned, in the long-term, for society's well being--so what's the best way to do that? Vote, sit back idly, and use government to force people's hand, or be (locally) proactive today?

[Akelmn]

Sorry, I expressed myself the wrong way for the sake of being rhetorical. What was meant implicitly was that people tend to disregard problems until there is an immediate threat (which could have often been prevented or mitigated).
I'll try to make an analogy: it's like leaving the oven on overnight and doing nothing until smoke starts coming out of the kitchen. It's like not turning off the tap until the water supply is low.
I hope that sheds some light on what I meant.

[KeroroGunsouTX]

This video is a perfect example of why I have problem with most LearnLiberty videos. While they present a seemingly rational argument, it is inevitably fundamentally biased. Near the end, Prof. Mulholland talks about the benefits and weaknesses of public ownership and the strengths of private ownership, but doesn't explore the weaknesses of private ownership, first and foremost being that private ownership means limiting access to those "shared" resources, which he only mentions in passing.

[Wyattinmnk]

Second; if a businessman cannot support the preservation the park, because there are not enough customers (people willing to come and pay for the cost of that preservation), it SHOULD be abandoned/bulldozed and utilized in a different way. But, if someone else really likes that park, they can also purchase it and try to maintain it more effectively or even at their own expense.

[corey]

Is this video stating that if someone works for an organization that is under public or govt ownership and they find a way to innovate something within that company or organization then they won’t be able reap the benefits of the value of their innovation unless they’re under private ownership?