Skip to main content

A column in Counterpunch this week (Iain Boal in conversation with David Martinez) inspired me to reconsider the intellectual legacy of Garrett Hardin.  In this essay, I will consider Hardin’s short piece "The Tragedy of the Commons" as an defining phenomenon of modern ecology.  Even though the "tragedy of the commons" is real, I argue, it has more to do with the poverty of capitalist commons management than with the incapability of society to manage the commons.  Good commons management will be necessary in the future, which will at some point mean a global human society more capable of protecting the commons than what we have now.

crossposted at Docudharma

Part 1: What is the "tragedy of the commons"?

Garrett Hardin died four years ago yesterday.  Hardin was a microbiologist, and an ecologist, and a lifelong Republican, and his intellectual contribution (although tainted by a generally Republican attitude toward life) to the field of ecology was enormous.  Hardin was also an excellent essayist, a quality I very much respect.

Garrett Hardin was most famous for an essay published in 1968 titled "The Tragedy of the Commons."  The basic idea of it is this: in a system where there is a "commons," an entity that is not divided into individually-owned private properties; individuals will eventually deplete the "commons" of its meaningful wealth.  Now, we can actually see the "tragedy of the commons" effect in the world’s oceans.  Usually it runs by the name of "overfishing" – the fisheries have brought the oceans to a state of ecological crisis through their need to get a short-term profit off of the world’s fish.  The fish, meanwhile, are "up for grabs" for anyone who can catch them because they live in a global "commons," the oceans.

Now, the "tragedy of the commons" is meant to illustrate a general principle.  A commons is an area which, by custom or by necessity, is not owned privately.  Hardin reasons that if anyone can take from the commons, then the commons will at some point be depleted.  The commons, for Hardin, is a system, in which losses are accepted by the society as a whole (the society as a whole loses when the commons is depleted), whereas profits are privatized (when individuals take from the commons).

Now, the example of the "tragedy of the commons" that Hardin uses is one of a field which ranchers are allowed to use.  This is how he describes "the tragedy of the commons" in ranching:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way.  Picture a pasture open to all.  It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons.  Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land.  Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality.  At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy. (3-4)

Once human population starts to escalate, the commons is in trouble, because people "eat up" the commons.

Now, I know of no direct proof that human overpopulation actually causes (in any direct way) the global ecological crisis.  Certainly the recent escalation of global human population can be correlated with the urbanization of the planet, which can itself be correlated with a broad loss of habitat for many of the world’s animal and plant species.  

But what is the causal link behind all of this?  Is "overpopulation" the cause of environmental degradation?  Or does it matter what the human race does, regardless of its numbers?

These are the questions begged by the "overpopulation" issue.  The other issue that is introduced in the "Tragedy of the Commons" essay (link) is the issue of the privatization of profit amidst the public acceptance of loss.  Certainly this is how neoliberal economics works – the rich get richer and the rest of us "stay afloat" with varying degrees of success.  

Here is Hardin’s characterization of why "the commons" is depleted.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain.  Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?"  This utility has one negative and one positive component.

  1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal.  Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.  
  1. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal.  Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionmaking herdsman is only a fraction of -1. (4)

So, for Hardin, there’s this game that all herdsmen are seemingly required to play: "deplete the commons before its benefits are used up."  Here’s how he sees the game ending:

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to the herd.  And another... but this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman about a commons.  Therein is the tragedy.  Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited.  Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.  Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. (4)

But is this how "rational herdsmen" really behave?  Do they all seek to add animals to their herds?  What about the lazy ones, the ones that wish to have small herds so they can spend more time doing something other than herding animals?  Is it less rational to be lazy, or to have other interests than "maximizing gain"?  Hardin’s response is that it doesn’t matter, that having a conscience about the commons doesn’t amount to anything because there will (with the increase in human population) still be attempts to use up the commons.

In "Tragedy of the Commons," Hardin proposes a solution to the tragedy of the commons: mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.  He suggests that private property is a way of doing this.  The laws prohibiting theft, for Hardin, also prohibit people from making a "commons" of the world, and thus prohibit the "tragedy of the commons."

However, in some circumstance the commons has to be communally (or publicly) managed.  In fact, some time after the publication of "Tragedy of the Commons" (in 1994), Hardin publishes an essay titled "Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons," to discuss how this should be so.

Part 2: Why commons management is necessary

In that essay, Hardin tries to demolish the notion promoted in Marx’s "Critique of the Gotha Programme," that wealth in human society should be distributed "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!"  If society were to follow such a rule, Hardin assumes:

You must contribute to the common pot according to your ability, while I demand the right to take out of the pot according to my needs, as I reckon them.  "Need creates right," say I.  But with every "I" saying this, in a world of shortages there can be no spontaneously generated stability.  (If there were no shortages there would be no problem of course: but that does not describe our world.)(176)

Marx’s suggestion, of course, presumed a world where shortages had ended for good.  At any rate, the slogan "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" do not have to assume that the needy have to be placed in charge of defining what their "needs" are.  If the satisfaction of needs comes from the use of the commons, then the definition of "needs" will have to come from the commons too.

Hardin nevertheless thinks that "the commons" can be managed communally.  He argues that the communes that manage the commons have to be of a certain maximum size, maybe "100 or 150 people," otherwise it won't work.

There is plenty of discussion, especially from anthropologists, against the idea that the solution to the "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the commons.  The privatization of the commons in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, has been widely acclaimed to have disastrous effects: see Custodians of the Commons (ed. Charles R. Lane) or Pauline E. Peters’ Dividing the Commons: Politics, Policy, and Culture in Botswana for more detailed ethnographic accounts.

A recent article in Counterpunch ("Specters of Malthus: Scarcity, Poverty, and Apocalypse") attacks Garrett Hardin (and a bunch of other neoMalthusians) for their connection to the neoliberal economic project:

Take for example Garrett Hardin's famous 1968 essay, "The tragedy of the commons", published in the journal Science. This was an enormously influential text by a Texan zoologist, based on no sociological research whatsoever, and in profound ignorance of the actual history of commoning. Hardin asserted that all common resources (such as pasture, a favorite example) will inevitably end in ruin because of over-exploitation by selfish individuals. Hardin's fable was taken up by the gathering forces of neo-liberal reaction in the 1970s, and his essay became the "scientific" foundation of World Bank and IMF policies, viz. enclosure of commons and privatization of public property. The plausibility of Hardin's Malthusian claims doesn’t survive a moment's scrutiny. Ask yourself - was the disaster of the Dust Bowl a tragedy of the commons or of capitalist agriculture under private ownership? (1)

The right-wing libertarian notion that the commons can be privatized into "safety" is wishful thinking.  First off, certain "commonses" (air, water) cannot just be parceled out to individuals as "private property."  The concept of private property, arguably, is based on two models: real estate, which is private property by virtue of its solid character, and chattel property, which consists of solid objects which can be owned.  The concept of private property is more difficult to apply to liquid and gaseous entities.  The Earth’s atmosphere, for instance, or the oceans, could not be meaningfully parceled out to individuals.  It wouldn’t mean anything, for instance, for me to claim ownership of a chunk of the atmosphere, or a volume of water anywhere in the Pacific Ocean.  Moreover, market systems of "user rights" do NOT constitute privatization of the atmosphere or the oceans, for they presume a prior collective state management of these entities as a precondition of the system.

So the commons, and the public management of the commons, are unavoidable.  (This is important to remember when debating Republicans, who revere private property as a sacred cow and as a panacea for social problems.)  Is the "tragedy of the commons" inevitable in all "commonses"?  Can people avoid the ruination of their planetary commons?  It’s hard to say.  It’s also a meaningful thing to speculate about.

Part 3: Why limits to "carrying capacity" are real

Hardin’s concept of the "tragedy of the commons" is intimately related to the concept of "carrying capacity."  With "carrying capacity," Hardin assumes that the landscape can only tolerate the presence of so many people, and at some point there will be too many people for the "carrying capacity" of the land.  Indeed, there has to be a thing called "carrying capacity" – if there weren’t such a thing, societies would not suffer ecological collapse.  (Thus Hardin’s later writings, such as The Ostrich Factor, are about overpopulation.  The Ostrich Factor (1998) pressures the academic community to admit that there is such a thing as overpopulation, accusing the deniers of being "ostriches" with their heads in the sand.)

If "carrying capacity" exists, for the world or for any large portion of it, we had better know what it is, if we wish to avoid exceeding the carrying capacity, and dying off.  However, any calculation of "carrying capacity" in a particular system of human metabolism of nature would have to take into account the ways in which people actually prop up "carrying capacity" itself.  People can materially support their local ecologies.  People can manage environments to be more ecologically diverse than they otherwise would be.  Human need does not have to deplete the land if humans contribute to its productivity, and if what comes out of human beings (from composted "bad food" to urine and feces) is effectively recycled.

Cornucopians (such as the late Julian Simon, author of The Ultimate Resource II), take the benefit of human existence too far.  They think that human potential is infinite, that we will always be able to think of new ways of supporting "carrying capacity," and that we will never run out of "natural resources."  They are wrong to think that the limits to "carrying capacity" (and the tragedy of the commons) will always be outwitted by human ingenuity.  What about human ingenuity that is pointed the wrong way, toward the destruction of Earth’s nurturance, toward more dissipated states of entropy?  How powerful is the human capacity for fouling the nest?  It’s easy to imagine that our society is culturally able to screw up Earth’s "carrying capacity" so badly (through nuclear war as a historically-first example) that it won’t be outwitted through the ingenuity of the cleverest individual living within its boundaries.  One quite likely way of screwing up Earth’s carrying capacity was noticed by Hardin in his 1985 book Filters Against Folly: we could create an abrupt climate change effect so bad that it could precipitate massive crop failure, thus widespread famine.  So cornucopianism will not help us with the tragedy of the commons.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, the capitalist system (including the "mixed economy," which at any rate serves largely to meet the demands of capitalists) has mostly catered to the demands for the short-term profit of an owning class, gained by whatever means necessary.  This is mostly what it means to "maintain a good business climate."  The capitalist system, then, cares little about propping up "carrying capacity."  At some point, then, we will need a new system of political economy, one that cares (both in government and in business) more about "carrying capacity" than capitalism does.  It may take a major "tragedy of the commons" to make this happen, however.

Originally posted to Cassiodorus on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:22 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for the commons (11+ / 0-)

    And do read Josee Johnston's essay "Who Cares About The Commons," reviewed in a previous diary.

    di innocent wi habah dout/ check tings out/ an maybe fine out/ but di fool.............cho! -- Linton Kwesi Johnson

    by Cassiodorus on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:18:09 PM PDT

  •  Hardin's attack on reproductive rights (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    Great diary, but it should also be emphasized that Hardin's objective, in The Tragedy of the Commons was to argue for restricting the rights of third-world women to decide whether or not to have children.

    As with so many of his ilk, Hardin started with an ideological supposition -- to reduce the number of non-white babies coming into the world -- cadged up some pseudoscience to back it up, and then used his degrees and social status to push his agenda.

    And people wonder why Americans distrust scientists. It's because "scientists" like Hardin have given us very good reasons for that distrust.

    Quotes from the article in question:

    We can make little progress in working toward optimum population size until we explicitly exorcise the spirit of Adam Smith in the field of practical demography. In economic affairs, The Wealth of Nations (1776) popularized the "invisible hand," the idea that an individual who "intends only his own gain," is, as it were, "led by an invisible hand to promote...the public interest." [5] Adam Smith did not assert that this was invariably true, and perhaps neither did any of his followers. But he contributed to a dominant tendency of thought that has ever since interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society. If this assumption is correct it justifies the continuance of our present policy of laissez faire in reproduction. If it is correct we can assume that men will control their individual fecundity so as to produce the optimum population. If the assumption is not correct, we need to reexamine our individual freedoms to see which ones are defensible.

    Hardin objected to this provision in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some thirty nations agreed to the following: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else.'' [14

    ]

    It is painful to have to deny categorically the validity of this right; denying it, one feels as uncomfortable as a resident of Salem, Massachusetts, who denied the reality of witches in the seventeenth century. At the present time, in liberal quarters, something like a taboo acts to inhibit criticism of the United Nations. There is a feeling that the United Nations is "our last and best hope," that we shouldn't find fault with it; we shouldn't play into the hands of the archconservatives. However, let us not forget what Robert Louis Stevenson said: "The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy." If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it is promoted by the United Nations. We should also join with Kingsley Davis [15] in attempting to get Planned Parenthood-World Population to see the error of its ways in embracing the same tragic ideal.

    •  Garrett Hardin: "lifelong Republican" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YellowDogBlue

      Ecological wisdom married to political foolishness.

      di innocent wi habah dout/ check tings out/ an maybe fine out/ but di fool.............cho! -- Linton Kwesi Johnson

      by Cassiodorus on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:05:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd challenge the ecological wisdom part (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cassiodorus

        The Malthusian supposition that a population increases in number until it reaches a "carrying capacity" way oversimplifies population dynamics.

        I think racist and pro-capitalist ideology within the scientific community has, in fact, served to hold back scientific understanding in the field of ecology--as well as applied ecology.

        Hardin is a prime example.

        •  I'd have to agree especially with this part: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YellowDogBlue

          I think racist and pro-capitalist ideology within the scientific community has, in fact, served to hold back scientific understanding in the field of ecology--as well as applied ecology.

          Hardin can be interpreted in an especially anti-capitalist way.  One can, for instance, see in Hardin the outlines of a "Tragedy of the Capitalist Commons," wherein without some effective communal force preventing the capitalists from consuming everything, the tragedy of the commons is a given.

          di innocent wi habah dout/ check tings out/ an maybe fine out/ but di fool.............cho! -- Linton Kwesi Johnson

          by Cassiodorus on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:34:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cassiodorus

            ...without some effective communal force preventing the capitalists from consuming everything, the tragedy of the commons is a given.

            Looking at the question historically, however, the cause of many ecological tragedies has been not simply the lack of an effective communal force, but rather the destruction of already existing communal forces -- carried out in the name of capitalist ideology.

            One is reminded of the old ditty:

            The law is hard on man or woman
            who steals a goose from off the common
            but turns the larger rascal loose
            who steals the common from the goose

            Thanks for the diary and the conversation.

    •  that's the problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cassiodorus

      having kids is not a right, it's a responsibility and should not be decided by the people having the kids who may not be able to take care of themselves let alone kids.

      This is the fundamental argument, do people have rights to have kids or do the children have the right to a good and loving environment to grow up in including financial security.  We have to stop pretending that having kids is a fundamental right, it isn't and if we want to save the world from climate change, wars, poverty, etc., there has to be some sort of qualifications, conditions,  and procedure in order to obtain a license to procreate.

      Garret Hardin was right, and now we are paying for it.

  •  The legacy of Hardin (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YellowDogBlue, Cassiodorus

    It's worth thinking about how much Hardin's ideas have shaped the market-based environmentalism evident in the work of Amory Lovins, William McDonough, and the field of industrial ecology.  All argue for market-based approaches to more sustainable production and consumption, and none particularly articulate a role for the state to aid sustainable economics.  

  •  I'm surprised you didn't mention his famous essay (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    martyc35, Cassiodorus

    "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor."

  •  I will have to re-read this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    I read "The tragedy of the commons" in grad school.  It seemed like received wisdom to me.  I believe Hardin's point on the fate of the unregulated commons is not in dispute and that it is indeed a tragedy.  I don't think Hardin was in favor of the enclosure movement in England, the slow strangulation of the commons through privitazation by the nobility and landed gentry in the 18th? century.  I though of Hardin as one who truly mourned the loss of the commons and was trying to warn us so that this fate could be averted.  Preservation of the commons or an ecosystem required dealing with it on a macro level as a whole. This may involve regulation by governmental or supra-national agencies but it certainly requires mamagement by groups who will frame management of the commons in terms of the effect on the group instead of the effect on individuals.
    Hardin is to me like Rachel Carson and Aldo Leopold, one of the early prophets of what we need to to do to preserve that which we have in common, and not as some have argued an opponent of the commons itself.

    Wethern's Law of Suspended Judgement: Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups

    by Tonga 23 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:33:02 PM PDT

  •  Hardin= a mixed bag. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    His writing sounds rather ideological and theoretical to my ear.

    Mankind has a history of depleting natural resources, then moving on to new frontiers. I've seen TV programs about The Ancient Near East where too much wood was cut down......and way back in history, too many goats and sheeps chewing up the vegetation on the north side of the Mediterranean....Greece. Some places never recovered.

    Some traditional societies manage better. The Industrial Age magnifies the problem.

    Interesting topic to be continued.
    And never mind whether it's public or private land/resources...I was reading about the guy who found the first gold that led to the California Gold Rush. So many men did rush into the area that the minimal police force couldn't control them......they overran his property........

    Commons.

    1. A tract of land, usually in a centrally located spot, belonging to or used by a community as a whole: a band concert on the village common.
    1. The legal right of a person to use the lands or waters of another, as for fishing.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved.

  •  Liberal Media Never Reports the Good News (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    From Iraq the commons

  •  odd set of presuppositions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    Hardin is saying that the individuals have use of the common property but that they are not a community despite that...in other words, there is no social interaction among them that will help mitigate the situation, like a bunch of them getting together over beers and saying, "You know, our common is really going downhill, I'll limit my use if you limit yours." Evidently being "rational" in Hardin's book means being a sociopathic loner who has no emotional investment in the other people that s/he is sharing the resource with.

    The "rational man" of economics is one of the great myths, as far as I can see. There are people who act like the "rational man", but my guess is they are definitely in the minority, and usually they lack access to the kind of complete information needed to make sound decisions based on what they perceive to be their "rational self-interest". The tendency of professed rationalists is to overestimate the adequacy of the information they base their judgments on.

    Had never heard before about the concept of a "maintenance cost of capital", but today I read an interesting essay that talks about why and how societies collapse, including the role of resource depletion. He also mentions Tainter's theory of collapse due to complexity (sort of like the collapsing overstaffed projects in Brooks's "Mythical Man-Month") but sees his own theory as a better alternative (although I think you could combine them). But the commons in Hardin's example seems like more of a renewable resource that has maintenance cost that the rational Hardin ranchers try to avoid paying.

    •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)
      Evidently being "rational" in Hardin's book means being a sociopathic loner who has no emotional investment in the other people that s/he is sharing the resource with.

      Or at least Hardin sees the sociopathic loners winning in this arrangement.  The task-at-hand is to make them lose (whereas privatization just hands them the farm...)

      di innocent wi habah dout/ check tings out/ an maybe fine out/ but di fool.............cho! -- Linton Kwesi Johnson

      by Cassiodorus on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:06:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jared Diamond's second book (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    contains some excellent examples of successful resource management in his second book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. I don't recall him mentioning "Tragedy of the Commons" directly, but he would probably dispute Hardin's contention that the commons needs to be privatized.

    I might add that if a commons is privatized and then bought by multi-national corporations, each of which have many different lines of business, they can deliberately plan to deplete a natural resource, confident that they can shift the focus of their business to some other ones.

    BTW, I happen to be a supporter of capitalism myself, but in the "mixed economy" model. The marketplace is good for some things, but not everything.

    •  Private property again (0+ / 0-)
      I might add that if a commons is privatized and then bought by multi-national corporations, each of which have many different lines of business, they can deliberately plan to deplete a natural resource, confident that they can shift the focus of their business to some other ones.

      Indeed, just because ecosystems have been privatized does not make them safe from human-caused deterioration.

      di innocent wi habah dout/ check tings out/ an maybe fine out/ but di fool.............cho! -- Linton Kwesi Johnson

      by Cassiodorus on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:38:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  commons history (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    Wikipedia has an excellent entry:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    and the original essay by William Forster Lloyd (1795 - 1852) is all the more worth reading.
    I think a fair reading of Lloyd alone already makes it clear that privatizing can rarely solve the commons problem.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site