Tragedy of The Commons

People living together must find some way to preserve common resources. 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. Mullholland 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.

Watch more videos: http://lrnlbty.co/y5tTcY

• Category

  Education

[timcb001]

Everyone with a job is in it to make a profit including academics and scientists. To think any of them would do it for free is naïve as well as foolish.

The way to benefit society overall is to engage in voluntary cooperation and be against the use of force. And, freedom does not mean free to do whatever you can get away with. It means free from having force (violence) used against you. Check out voluntarism,environmental libertarianism, Austrian (real world vs model based economics, etc.

[MDFification1]

@Robert Shackleford Do you actually just comment on all of this channel's vids? Considering you have strong opinions wasting them on a youtube comment section while lurking the people who you oppose seems kind of counterproductive.

[Jeremy Kaderka]

who is the guy who is speaking in this video?

[Robert Shackleford]

Some more corporate propaganda from learn liberty..lol. Every wonder why they even have state or federal parks? Do you really think central park in New York City would be there if it was privately owned. Do me a favor and look into the history of Yellow Stone national park and you will get your answer, these vids are a joke.

[micro5eb]

I'm sorry but expecting everybody to act like a rich academic that doesn't need money, is bewilderingly naive. Economists look at the worst case scenario when human compassion isn't a factor.

[MrCharles7994]

Ultimately, if you take into account every monetary implication of someone's work, you could still have private stewardship that only took into account money.

Global warming in its current form is most likely going to cost a large percentage of the USA GDP in revenue if it is allowed to continue to worsen. By taking steps to counteract it, you cancel out that cost-but it is a HIDDEN cost. The same can be said of green energy, and many other fields.

But most people don't take this into account

[AugustWestElectronic]

Privatization is driven by profit that may be to the detriment of the common. A model that needs to be explored is "private stewardship", whereby the steward is rewarded not by the profit achieved, but by the benefits provided to the common.

[Atlas Bane]

Er, there's more than one way to skin a lamb. That park ranger doesn't need a cash incentive; if he appreciates trees, the actual act of exporting his innovative way of stopping forest fires is actually a reward in itself, and has intrinsic value. Most scientists and academics aren't in the job for profit, y'know; why does everyone else have to be?

[MrCharles7994]

It was nice to have a calm conversation with someone, for once, yes. Good night.