In Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons, David Bollier challenges prominent negative views of the commons, which are considered to be chaotic and a failure. He asserts that such ideas have arisen because many, specifically economists, think of it as a free-for-all. Instead, he states that the commons “has boundaries, rules, social norms, and sanctions against free riders” (24). He recognizes that the tragedy of the commons myth must be addressed because it mischaracterizes a social system that formerly existed inaccurately. I noticed that he does not say whether capitalism must be dismantled but he does describe those who work on Wall Street, which is the epitome of capitalism, like wizards. By doing so, he indicates that they have powers and through their supernatural abilities they “maximize private gains without the regard for the systemic risks or local impacts” (26). I aver that money provides the Wall Street “wizards” their abilities. Bollier modifies the popular phrase tragedy of the commons to tragedy of the market to illustrate that the faults people pinpoint to the commons, in fact, derive from the flaws of a laissez-faire market economy. To support his argument, Bollier analyzes political scientist Elinor Ostrom’s work.
Bollier clearly defines the commons as a system that is about the practice and ethic of sufficiency. Given Earth’s finite resources, one may believe that such a system of governance will permit everyone to enjoy the fruits of the land. If everyone works together, then everyone would have enough to survive, right? If boundaries are drawn and people are allowed to capture/claim any and all resources, what would occur? From the readings, many of the authors argue that is natural resources deplete at such a rate where they cannot replenish themselves fast enough and it creates the haves and have nots. Currently, in NYC, Elizabeth Street Garden has been marked as a potential site to build low-cost apartment complexes for senior citizens. Although low-income affordable housing is desperately needed, so is green space. In an economy that pushes people to maximize profits and may seem to be filled with vultures, how can society for all even exist? People who would want to do good may be reluctant to do anything because they fear they will be taken advantage of. Bollier does an excellent job describing why people are reluctant to contribute to the commons. He does so by stating that because people fear that their idea may be used and privatized to be sold for money, people don’t contribute. This reminded me of a specific moment I taught at a high school. When discussing a project that all students had to complete, I asked if anyone would want to share with the class what they were thinking of doing. When no one raised their hand, I simply called on a student and they quickly snapped back stating that they did not want to say because they didn’t want anyone to take their idea. This encounter affirms Bollier’s assumption. In order to have people contribute to the commons, there must be substantial reform to how society and the economy operates.
Bollier does have a lot of faith in humanity though! The example you shared of a high school classroom in which no one wants to share for fear that someone else will steal is an example of a side of human nature that Bollier might argue has been excessively amplified by capitalism. Fear of people taking more than their share or greed or selfishness can become devalued if everyone agrees to do so. He believes people have a capacity to share resources that is just as possible as their capacity NOT to do so, but only if they live within a system that rewards cooperation. What incentive do you think people need to cooperate with one another? The incentive to accumulate money or property seems to be the liberty to do with it what you want and to gain power. What can overcome that incentive?