-
As you state yourself, if everyone does it, that common will disappear.
No it won't, it is in a sense a 'renewable' resource. There's a new batch every day, in a limited number, and when it's gone it's gone - but it doesn't mean there won't be more tomorrow.
The 'tragedy of the commons' applies to things like over-fishing: the tragedy isn't that each fisher will take home less. The tragedy is that each fisher contributes to destroying the entire ecosystem, until there is no fish population left at all. Similarly, if some (few) people extract wood from the Amazon in controlled numbers, it's fine. If more people extract wood, at some point there will be less for each person - but the tragedy isn't that, the tragedy is that due to the increased deforestation, the entire area will turn into a sand desert, and the commons as such has disappeared.
So basically, as I said, while it is a super important concept to keep in mind and it does apply to a lot of things, not everything that only works if a small number of people does it is immediately a good 'tragedy of the commons' example.
Sorry for derailing the thread further, but I think it's an important distinction.
You are reading a single comment by @SwissChap and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
SwissChap
I wasn't applying it to newspapers. I'm not even following that conversation. It was a response to a sentiment - i.e. the quoted text. I.e. exactly what I said in my reply.
But having said that, you're still wrong in your own example. In this case the commons in the newspapers. As you state yourself, if everyone does it, that common will disappear.