The Commons

a short introduction into the idea of the commons, as well as a critical review of the so called "tragedy of the commons",
You're invited to use the video for whatever purpose: It has a free licence: Creative Commons: BY, SA

• Category

  Education

[MerlinYoda]

"what is the distinction between common and public? "

In short, the difference is government. A "public" resource, is something that people claim equal ownership to through a government (e.g. a public park) and establish laws and regulations for their use. A "common" resource is one that all can access, but none lay any claim of ownership (either directly or indirectly) For, example, if there was a parcel of land that was claimed by no country, any resources there could be seen as "common".

[shealy99]

I guess to my mind somethings are inevitably open access commons--the atmosphere for example. As a community it makes sense to delimit how much we pollute it (in various ways) because we cannot effectively enclose it (though the ITF systems come close). To my mind something exist as "common" only because there are rules that bring the commons into existence--for example, the internet as a commons or even language itself... what is the distinction between common and public?

[MerlinYoda]

But once it stops being openly accessible, it is no longer a "commons" in this sense of the word. Also, with a commons, no one lays any claim of ownership whatsoever to it, not even the community as a whole. Both approaches of limiting access are achieved by either transitioning the commons to public ownership (i.e. ownership by the government for everyone's use) or to private ownership (e.g. a non-profit group maintains it instead and reaps the consequences of having it be publicly accessible).

[shealy99]

I think you just described the difference. Imposing a ban is laying down the law to restrict access to a common resource. That's directed at an individual. Imposing a fee structure is another way limiting access. That is a 'market' mechanism and it may or may not be applied uniformly. You could have a fee and still have a commons.

[RockSoilerToil TaleTattler]

"paying for the privilege" aint no quick slap the flaps* on the counter deal but putting time in on what's a consensed urgency ...

* flaps which hold/promise 'standard' w status of outsider threat based 'value' - typically what the US$Power is based on these days

[MerlinYoda]

Meh, fails to address the issue of the "free rider problem". For example, what do you do with a guy that grazes his sheep in the common area but contributes nothing towards it's maintenance. If the answer is to ban him from using the commons until he puts forth some effort in that maintenance, how is that categorically different than paying for the privilege in some other manner?

[wbhyatt]

Basically says capitalism can eat a dick. And i'm right there with her.

[longhaultrckr]

Really? poor English? Are you an armchair linguist? Humans have accents. Do you speak a second language well enough to justify your inane, poorly thought comment? Would you dare to tackle an abstract idea and present it in public form in a non-native language? If not, you are simply an elitist wanker.

[traenenspur]

Cute video, but really poor English! It takes away from the overall impression. Audio makeover perhaps?