What do government schools, the post office, waterways, and roads have in common? Besides being in sorry condition, each is an example of the tragedy of the commons.
The tragedy of the commons, according to Wikipedia, occurs when
multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen.
For example, if multiple ranchers are sharing a common parcel of land for grazing, each rancher will be motivated to maximize his use of the land. When all rancher does this, the result is overgrazing and a depletion of the resource.
When a resource is owned “in common” or by “the public,” users have no motivation to protect and maximize the long-term value of the resource. This is true whether the resource is a pasture, air, water, or any other human value. Indeed, we see examples of the tragedy of the commons on a daily basis, such as air and water pollution, crumbling roads and bridges, and schools that don’t educate. Each of these resources is owned by “the public.”
The tragedy of the commons goes beyond merely the depletion or poor management of a resource. “Public resources” also become a magnet for special interest groups seeking to influence the use and management of those resources. Whether it is teachers unions calling for more “investment” into government schools, or civil engineers calling for more “investment” into infrastructure, or environmentalists calling for more regulations and controls, “public ownership” transforms these resources into political battlegrounds.
With few exceptions, the proposed solutions to pollution, decaying infrastructure, failing schools, and a bankrupt post office fail to identify the cause of these problems. The cause is not insufficient “investment” or a lack of regulations. The cause is “public ownership,” that is, government intervention. The solution is the recognition and protection of property rights, that is, an end to the commons.
For example, if government schools were abolished and all educational services were provided by private businesses, students and parents would be free to choose the school that best meets their needs. Rather than obtain their funding and their customers through government coercion (taxes and compulsory attendance laws), schools would compete by offering the curriculum desired by consumers. Political battles over textbooks, curriculum, and similar issues would disappear.
Or, if property rights were attached to air and water, those who harm the property of others would be held liable for the damages. Most people understand that if they cause an accident that damages another individual’s car, they are responsible. The same principle can and should be applied to all resources, including air and water.
Certainly, resources such as air and water present complexities that do not exist with other property. But complexity does not negate the principle. (For a more thorough discussion of this issue, see “The Practicality of Private Waterways”.)
When property is privately owned, the owner has a motivation and the power to manage his property to protect its value. When property rights are respected, the use of that property is determined by the owner, not a parade of noisy, competing special interests. When individuals are free to use their property as they choose, they produce the values that others want and need.
Who do you think is more likely to build great road and bridges, someone like Walt Disney or someone like Barney Frank? Who do you think could create better schools, someone like Steve Jobs or someone like Nancy Pelosi? Who do you think could deliver the mail more efficiently, someone like Jeff Bezos or someone like Harry Reid?