250bpm

I always saw the tragedy of the commons as very similar to the prisonner's dilemna: the optimal strategy for each individual leads a globally unoptimal situation.

A real-life exemple: elections. Your vote is not going to tip the scale, and so voting is a waste of time. Except that if (mostly) everyone does this, it only leaves a handful of idiots / fanatics / paid voters to decide on the issue.

Interestingly, most people get very upset when you suggest that voting is a waste of time. More understandably, most people condemn the idiot in the tragedy of the commons. So there seems to be a strong "sense of the commons".

Great essay!

When cows are gone you can dig for gold,… Not scaling the cows business could be a mistake. Unless by cows you mean just environmental resources.

The real question: what is the worst case scenario and can we survive it? If not then let's regulate. If yes (with proof!) then let's suck it up. Next time someone else will look like an "idiot" anyway.

These ideas are not mine. They are the main point of Nassim Taleb's Antifragile book.

PS: small typo s/prople/people/

Worst case scenario? All cattle dead. Are the villagers able to survive it? Yes. They can move elsewhere. Should we accept the scenario, just because it's not a global collapse? I doubt it.

I like Nassim Talebs books as well, unfortunately, haven't read the last one yet.

or what about "The tragedy of abusing the commons for private exploitation"?

as indicated, it's rather the privatisation of the cows, and the resulting short-term individual profit-seeking that's causing the tragedy.

As a thought experiment consider the effect of this change to the scenario: The right of property cannot be held without compensation to the other commoners. Think Henry George style land value taxation.

In the traditional Russian agriculture commons, the "Tragedy of the Commons" was solved fast and efficient. The scarce resources, the frail and unsure agriculture required that such things simply would not happen. So, the commons either expelled such a guy or even set his house on fire and kill excess kettle: cruel but decisive.

A guy that tries to use more than others do was called "мироед" ("miroyed", the one who eats what should be distributed among all).

The Russian commons' goal was very simple: all the members should keep alive until the next harvest, even if the weather or other conditions were unfavourable, which was happening too frequent. So all resources were gathered together and distributed evenly.

many have been experimenting with idea of some progressive taxation for using common resources… in addition to VATs, "tax on air", "tax on emissions", … it'd add forces preventing destruction of resource by homines economicii
:)
Taxes collected can be used to replentish the resource, e.g. fish hatcheries for fishermen… and the circle is complete
:)

being from Russia, I'm not aware of any examples of "Tragedy of the Commons", communities take care of idiotic actions quickly when voices are equal…

There were many examples of overutilization mistakes of planned economy, during Stalin rule when dissidents were shot immediately, literally leading to famine and deaths… and I am afraid it might come back.

IMO, inequality is what causes tyranny of monopolies, leading to inevitable mismanagement… but that's another story. Remember, inequality caused Communist Revolution in Russia and nazism in Germany :)